The appellant also set up a title by alleging his adverse possession over the suit property to the exclusion of all including respondent No.1.
The Trial Court framed issues and parties adduced their evidence.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine observing that the appeal does number involve any substantial question of law.
875 of 2009 whereby the second appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed at the admission stage.
1 plaintiff , the suit property was owned by their late father Sheikh Noor Mohd.
Respondent No.
1, by virtue of inheritance and being one of his legal heirs, got share in the suit property as per the shares defined in the Mohammedan Law.
59 of 2000 before the District Judge, Aurangabad.
By a judgment decree dated 30.11.2001, the District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit and accordingly passed a decree for partition and separate possession of the suit property in favour of respondent No.1.
P 1 and hence neither his late father had any right, title or interest in the said property and, in companysequence thereof, number respondent No.1 companyld inherit any right, title or interest in the suit property through her father as his legal heir.
Civil Judge J.D. at Aurangabad being Civil Suit No.
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.
The appellant denied the case set up by respondent No.1 and companytended, inter alia, in his written statement that the suit property is his self acquired property because he purchased the same by his own efforts by a registered sale deed Ex.
She filed a civil suit against the appellant and respondent Nos.
It relates to landed and house properties situated at village Satara, District Aurangabad Maharashtra as detailed in Para 1 of the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suit property .
By a judgment decree dated 24.12.1999, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.1.
1 filed second appeal being A. No.875 of 2009 before the High Court.
2 to 8 proforma defendants in the Court of IInd Jt.
Respondent No.1 plaintiff , felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being R.C.A. No.
The dispute in the appeal arises between the members brother and sister of one Muslim family.
The appellant herein is the first defendant and respondent No.
1 is the real sister of the appellant.
2 to 8 in the suit.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Felt aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
2 to 8 herein are defendant Nos.
and on his death, respondent No.
120 of 1994 and prayed therein the relief of partition by meets and bounds of the suit property and, in companysequence, also claimed her separate possession in the suit property qua the appellant.
According to respondent No.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Second Appeal No.
Respondent No.1 alleged that since her father died intestate leaving behind respondent No.1 and the appellant being sister and brother, she is entitled to claim partition of the suit property and its separate possession as tenant in companymon as against her brother appellant herein .
1 herein is the plaintiff whereas respondent Nos.
Felt aggrieved, appellant defendant No.
