1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.394 OF 2009 Shri Digambar Sadashiv Damle ..... Appellant vs. Shri Dattatray Sadashiv Damle ..... Respondents & Ors. Mr.S.M. Railkar, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. PC : 1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff to challenge concurrent findings of the Courts below as regards his share in the joint family properties and directions as regards equitable distribution of the properties in favour of original defendant no.1 and original defendants no.6 and 7. The appellant filed the suit claiming to have 1/5th share in the joint family properties and sought its partition and distribution by its metes and bounds. The contention of the appellant is that he and his four brothers have 1/5th share each in the properties, the four sisters having been given their share in some way or the other. The other contention raised is that the sisters have relinquished their share in the joint family property. Both the courts below rejected the contentions of the appellant and held that the appellant has 9/48th share in the suit properties. The original defendant nos.1 to 4 who are the brothers of the appellant have been declared to be entitled 2 to 9/48th share each in the suit properties and the original defendant nos. 5 and 8 entitled to 1/48th share and original defendants no.6 and 7 jointly entitled to 1/48th share. While directing the decree being sent to the Collector,Ratnagiri for effecting partition, as per the share, the trial court held that at the time of partition of the property, house No.189 and 102 be allotted to original defendant no.1 on priority basis and the excess land on which houses are built up be deducted from the share of original defendant no.1. It also directed that at the time of effecting partition survey no.98, Hissa no.6 be allotted to the share of original defendants no.6 and 7 on priority basis. These directions are obviously based on equitable consideration of actual actual occupation of the properties by the defendants. The anxiety expressed by the appellant is that because of the above directions of allotment on priority basis these defendants may end up getting property exceeding their share. It is needless to mention that even if the properties are directed to be allotted to particular defendants on priority basis at the time of effecting partition, the allotment would be limited to the share of that particular defendant. After satisfaction of that share, the excess of the property would be available for distribution amongst the other family members pursuant to their share under the decree. With this clarification, the Second Appeal is dismissed as there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the Court. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)