1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 66/2007 VITHAL MADHAVRAO LAHURE VERSUS ATMARAM S/O JAIRAM LAHURE AND OTHERS ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr.B.R. Surwase, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Ravindra G. Chavan h/f Mr. G.K. Chavan and Mr. S.G. Chavan for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 absent though served. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 7th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard for admission. 2 The second appeal is filed for challenging the concurrent finding recorded by Courts below that the appellant could not have filed suit for partition because the defendants had proved amply that in 1977, the joint family property was partitioned and pursuant to such partition, the appellant / plaintiff has received his due share. Although there are some errors committed by the learned judges of the courts below while delivering judgments and while framing the 2 issues, yet the jist of the dispute was ‘whether the respondents/defendants could prove that there already occurred partition between the members of the joint Hindu family’. The evidence that has come on record amply proved this disputed question in affirmative and so, the appellant / plaintiff is unable to proceed further in this dispute. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/