-1- GPN-J-2459-ARHCBN-3-04-1,00,000-ALA4* [Spl.-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.79e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 402/2008 Pandurang Sitaram Ingle - versus- Gunaji Sitaram Ingle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2009. Heard Advocate Shri N.S.Badhe, for appellant. Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for partition. Today along with Pursis, partition deed dated 31.1.1970 is produced on record and copy of the plaint is also shown to urge, that the plaintiff himself approached the Court with a case that there was already a partition of ancestral fields. Perusal of paragraph no.2 of the plaint shows that when the father of parties expired, there was ancestral land and those ancestral land are at Hingne Dharangaon and fields are known as Waghjai, Kartad and Mai. It is specifically mentioned that these properties were partitioned between the parties by father during his life time. It has been further mentioned that other properties which the family got under Tenancy Act -2- were not partitioned. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the substantial question of law sought to be urged on the basis of partition deed does not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal. The learned counsel has however, after the order was dictated, again requested for rehearing. I have again reheard him. He has tried to show that the properties which are received in Tenancy proceedings by father had fallen to share of father in said partition. The contention is therefore, finding of trial court that there was no partition is incorrect. The plaint paragraph no.3 shows the grievance of plaintiff that after death of father, share of father was not partitioned again between legal heirs. The learned counsel states that after death of father the said property is given to defendant by way of oral gift. At this stage it is again urged that the appellant has become owner by adverse possession. It is stated that the possession after death of father is adverse to plaintiff. It is apparent that there is no evidecne of ouster and hence argument of adverse possession is misconceived. Second Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.