SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for Appellants and Respondents finally, at the stage of admission itself.

2. Admit.

3. Both these Second Appeals are preferred by the unsuccessful Defendants against the Common Judgment and Decree dated 4th September 2013 passed by District Judge-1, Niphad, District Nashik, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2005 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2005.

4. These two Appeals were directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 2nd December 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, District Nashik, in Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 1995.

5. The said Suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share each in the suit properties. Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are their married daughters. Appellant No. 2 is the second wife of Appellant No. 1 and Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the children born to Appellant No. 2 from Appellant No. 1 within the wedlock.

6. It is the case of the Respondents that, the suit lands bearing Gat Nos. 185, 186, 88/2 and 89/1, situate at Mouje Datyane, Taluka Niphad and the house property bearing G.P. No. 110-B, situate at Village Oney, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik, along with the other movable properties, like Jeep, six Shares of Niphad Sugar Factory and the ornaments worth Rs. 60,000/- were the ancestral joint family properties of Appellant No. 1. The marriage of Respondent No. 1 with Appellant No. 1 took place on 27th February 1975. She co-habited with him for a period of about eight years and from within the wedlock, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are born. Thereafter, she was driven out of the house on 11th June 1983. Since then, she was residing along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the house of her brother. In a Suit filed by her for maintenance, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1992, the land bearing Gat No. 88/2 was given to her towards her maintenance as her exclusive property and since then, she is in possession thereof. The said land being given to her towards the maintenance, she has become absolute owner thereof and hence, it cannot be subjected to partition. However, as regards the remaining three lands, the house property and other movable assets, she, along with her two daughters, is having 1/4th share each therein. Appellant No. 1, however, in order to deprive Respondent No. 1 and her two daughters from their share in the joint family properties, had out of the income from the joint family properties, purchased Gat No. 89/1 in the name of his second wife, i.e. Appellant No. 2, and was also in the process of transferring the lands bearing Gat Nos. 185 and 186 in the name of Appellant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the sons born to him out of the second marriage. The Respondents were, therefore, constrained to file this Suit for partition and separate possession of their share in all these properties.

7. This Suit came to be resisted by the Appellants herein, denying that the land bearing Gat No. 88/2 has become absolute property of Respondent No. 1. It was also denied that, the land bearing Gat No. 89/1 was purchased by him in the name of Appellant No. 2 out of the income from the ancestral joint family properties. It was submitted that, the said land belongs exclusively to Appellant No. 2. Hence, Respondents cannot claim any share in the said property. Moreover, he has also transferred the lands bearing Gat Nos. 185 and 186 in the name of his sons from the second wife. Therefore, the Respondents cannot claim any share in the suit lands or other ancestral joint family properties.

8. The Trial Court was, after appreciating the evidence on record, pleased to hold that, as regards the land bearing Gat No. 88/2, as it was given to Respondent No. 1 in view of the 'Decree' passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1992, she is the absolute owner thereof. Similarly, as regards the land bearing Gat No. 89/1, the Trial Court found,