(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2004 Ravikant Ruben Vasave. .. Appellant. versus Vanitabai w/o. Sudhir Vasave & others .. Respondents ....................... Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the appellant. Respondent nos.1 to 4 served (Absent). Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.5 vide court's order dated 31-3-2010. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / original defendant no.1. (2) 2. The grant of decree dated 3rd August 2000, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Navapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 1999, declaring entitlement of plaintiff no.1 and the defendant nos.1 and 2 about shares in the immovable property, was questioned by the aggrieved defendant no.1 before the first appellate court, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 22/2000. 3. The learned first appellate court, on evaluation of the evidence and the relations between the parties, accepted the decree, as it is, only clarified shares which were certainly in legal tune to the entitlement of the parties litigating. The partition of house property referred by the learned first appellate court was indeed in tune with the house property referred as 288 in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Navapur. 4. The Second Appeal does not project any substantial question of law to be formulated and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1329