1 SA 672.2006 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.K.Thigle, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed Suit for partition and separate possession. The said Suit came to be decreed. The defendant preferred Appeal. The Appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the property was already partition during the life time of father, which can be vouched from the mutation entry No. 2 SA 672.2006 351 of the year 1978. Once the partition was already effected during the life time of father, the plaintiff does not have any right. According to the learned counsel, the premise on which the theory put-forth by the appellant is disbelieved, is improper. Just because the uncle of the appellant has relinquished his share in the year 1986, that would not negative the theory of the present appellant of partition. The Courts have mis-read the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Thigle, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the fact that the uncle in the year 1986 had executed relinquishment deed in favour of the respondents, itself shows that the partition had not taken place between the father and the uncle of the appellant and the plaintiff. When there was no partition between the father and uncle, there was no question of partition between the father and his son. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 6. It is the fact that the uncle of the parties had filed Suit for partition in the year 1986. The said Suit was withdrawn and on the same day, relinquishment deed was executed. This shows that the property was not partitioned between the father and uncle till the year 1986. In view of that, no question arises of partition between the father and the brothers of the plaintiff in the year 1978. 3 SA 672.2006 As such, the said mutation entry would be of no avail for the benefit of the appellant. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. 7. In light of the same, no substantial question of law arises and as such the present Second Appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 672.2006