1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2010 Shrawan Bajirao Vaidya thr L.Rs. Kamal Shrawan Vaidya & Ors. Vs. Bhagirathi Narayan Vaidya & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri K. R. Lule Adv for appellant. CORAM:_ C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 16 th APRIL, 2010. . Heard counsel for the appellants. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court whereby suit for partition came to be dismissed. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that although there was a family arrangement between the plaintiffs and the defendants there was no actual partition by meets and bounds and therefore plaintiff contended that he is entitled to have 1/3rd share in the suit property. Defendants had contended that there was already a 2 partition in the year 1950 and same has been acted upon. The Courts below have accepted the theory of there being a partition in the year 1950. There is a concurrent finding of fact of both Courts below that there was a partition in the year 1950. Assuming that there was no partition actually but the fact remains that there was a family arrangement in existence since 1950. Law is well settled that where the family arrangement continues for long period that has to be treated as partition. The one which is urged is no more a substantial question of law because law is settled that where family arrangement continues for a long period that has to be treated as partition itself. In view of this, there is no merit in the appeal. Same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 3 4 5