1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1921 OF 2008 Dnyandeo Tukaram Kesare ........Appellant versus Shankar Bandu Kesare & ors........ Respondents. Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar adv. for the Appellant Mr. S.D. Thokade adv. for the respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. One Raoji had three sons by name Bandu, Rangu and Tukaram. The plaintiff is the son of Tukaram wheras the defendant no.1 is the son of Bandu and defendant no.2 is the son of Rangu. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession. It was undisputed that the suit properties were joint family peroperties, at an earlier point of time, the same having been purchased by the three brothers during the period from the year 1915 to 1920. The three brothers had purchased the said properties by investing money while they were in gainful employment in Bombay. However the defendants categorically pleaded that in the year 1932 the propeties were partitioned and 2 separated amongst the three brothers. After the partition the plaintiff's father Tukaram sold his share of properties in favour of his other two brothers by name Bandu and Rangu, and since the year 1932 the names of the predecessor in titile of the defendants are appearing in revenue records, and the original sale deeds registred in the year 1932 were produced on record and duly proved and exhibited. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the three brothers had separated in mess and residents on account of the partition having been effected in the year 1932 which fact is further substantiated from the transactions such as sale deed executed by Tukaram in favour of his other brothes for valid consideration. The view taken by both the courts below, that the properties were partitioned in the year 1932 is based on evidence on record and does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration. In the result there being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed in limine. 3. In view of the dismisal of second appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)