1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1393 OF 2004 Sou. Saraqswati w/o. Rangrao Kasbekar (since deceased through his legal hiers: 1a) Sou. Shilatai Shivajirao Patil & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Tanaji Mahadeo Yadav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Harshad Inamdar ,Advocate, i/b. Mr. P.M.Pradhan for the appellant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 24th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. Admittedly, one Gopal Babu Yadav died in 1943 leaving behind two sons, viz. Dnyanu and Tukaram. Tukaram had one daughter Saraswati. Dnyanu had number of sons and daughters. Plaintiff Tanaji is the son of Mahadeo Yadav. He filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The suit was mainly contested by defendant no.1 Tukaram son of Gopal and defendant no.17 who is the daughter of Tukaram. According to them, partition had already taken place and they were in possession of separate property. In alternative, they claimed that 2 they were in continuous and open possession and they had perfected the title for more than12 years. The contentions of the defendants were rejected and suit for partition was decreed holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/45th share from half share of Dnyanu. That judgment and decree was challenged by the present appellant by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.147 of 1994. That appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal. 3. There is concurrent finding of fact rendered by the two Courts below that partition had not taken place and it also appears that the plaintiff has been granted only share from the half share of Dnyanu branch indicating that the defendant No.1 Tukaram would be entitled to remaining half share in the property of his father. No question of law involved in the present Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)