1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 423/2006 Chhote Bhojya and another vs. Mannu Bhikari ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande,J DATE : 30.10.2007 Heard Mr. S.H.Quazi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri A.M.Quazi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this Second Appeal the appellants take exception to the Judgment and decree dated 9.3.2005 passed by the Third Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 938/2000 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 74/98. The respondent is the original plaintiff who filed the above suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit property situated at Kamptee. The plaintiff averred that the defendants were his cousin brothers and he and the defendants had inherited the suit property from their common ancestor and as such they were the co-owners of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendants were entitled to 2` half share in the suit property. The defence of the defendants was that there was oral partition in respect of the suit house about 40 years back and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held against the defendants in so far as the issue of limitation is concerned and also rejected the theory of oral partition set up by the defendant and consequently decreed the suit. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree sought for. 3. Mr. S.H.Quazi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by both the courts that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to half share each is contrary to the evidence on record and as such perverse. According to the learned counsel, both the courts below ought to have accepted the theory of oral partition set up by the defendants and ought to have dismissed the suit. 4. Per contra, Mr. A.M.Quazi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are concurred findings of fact which are borne out from the evidence on record and, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the 3` learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to half share each is a finding based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. In my opinion, both the courts below have rightly rejected the theory of oral partition set up by the defendants and decreed the suit. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge patle