The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of framing substantial questions of law and the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and review jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Modak, J. - Heard learned Advocate Shri P.D. Randive for the applicants/appellants and learned Advocate Shri M.P. Dhruv for non-applicant/respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6.

2. This is an application for review by the appellants in the second appeal. Defendant No.2 is the original purchaser on the basis of one of the sale- deeds executed by defendant No.1-Pandharinath. Whereas, defendant No.5 is a subsequent purchaser. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of defendant No.1- Pandharinath. During his life time, they have challenged various sale-deeds executed by defendant No.1 and they have asked for partition of the suit land.

3. Their suit was dismissed by the trial Court, whereas the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiffs reversed the judgment and decreed the suit. Amongst the five defendants, only defendant Nos.2 & 5 have preferred Second Appeal No.57/2016. This Court as per the judgment dated 25/08/2016 dismissed the second appeal without admitting and without framing substantial questions of law.

4. This is the grievance of the applicants that no substantial questions of law were framed. One more ground taken is "this Court has not properly considered the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh vs. Puran and Ors. - AIR 2008 SC 1490". To support this contention, the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in the case of Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and others 2016 DGLS (SC) 146 is relied upon. The observations in the case of Uttam (supra) were very much there when this Court decided the second appeal. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6 opposed the application on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of record and dismissal of the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law is justified. Further more, it is submitted that the substantial questions of law need to be formulated, if this Court might have reversed the decision of the first appellate Court.

5. So, the following points arise for my determination:

As to Point No.1 :

6. For appreciating the grievance, it will be necessary to consider the facts only for the limited purpose. Yadavrao Chafle was the common ancestor. He expired in the year 1968 leaving behind some properties. He is survived by two sons and wife. Defendant No.1-Pandhari is one of the sons, whereas, Purushottam is the another son, to which we are not concerned in the proceedings. Jijabai-defendant No.3 is the wife. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are the daughters of defendant No.1-Pandhari. Swati-defendant No.3 is the another daughter. There was a partition in between two brothers i.e. defendant No.1-Pandhari and his brother Purushottam in the year 1970. Defendant No.1-Pandhari got some of the properties. He sold the land vide three different sale-deeds. Defendant No.2 is the purchaser, whereas defendant No.2 in turn sold the suit property to defendant No.5.

7. It is the bone of contention of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that the property devolved on Pandhari does not belong to him as exclusive property, but the plaintiffs were having right in it. So, the issue before the trial Court was, whether the property acquired on partition is a separate property or joint family property. The trial Court gave a finding that the suit property is an ancestral property, however, the suit came to be dismissed as other points could not be proved by the plaintiffs. The first appellate Cour