This court dismissed an appeal in the limine as there was no error of law pointed out and no substantial question of law arose. The lower courts found the property was not joint family property.
Appeal dismissed in the limine with no substantial question of law involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.507 OF 1999
Shri Mahadeo G. Bansode
... Appellant
Versus
Shri Bhau Krishna Bansode
& Ors.
... Respondents
Milind Deshmumkh for Appellant
CORAM :S.R. SATHE,J.
DATED :21/12/2006
P.C.:-
1.Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. Suit
for partition and separate possession filed by
Plaintiff was partly decreed by the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved, Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.
35/1993. However, the same came to be dismissed.
2.The dispute is only now in respect of the
property described in paragraph 1A of the plaint. Both
the Courts below have given concurrent finding that
Plaintiff has failed to prove that the said property
is joint family property of Plaintiff and defendants.
There is nothing on record to show that the findings
recorded by the Courts below are perverse or that the
lower courts have not taken into consideration
2
particular evidence.
3.No error of law is pointed out by the learned
Advocate for the Appellant. No substantial question of
law is involved in the appeal.
4.Hence appeal is dismissed in the limine.
Shri Mahadeo G. Bansode
Shri Bhau Krishna Bansode
S.R. Sathe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court