( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2009 Shriniwas s/o Radhakishan Indani APPELLANT VERSUS Jitendra s/o Ramniwas Garg RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff. His suit for injunction simplicitor (R.C.S. No. 240/2007) came to be dismissed. He carried appeal to the first Appellate Court vide R.C.A. No. 99/2008 which also came to be dismissed. Thus, there are concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below. Both the Courts held that the appellant failed to establish his lawful possession in ( 2 ) respect of the suit properties which comprises of five acres agricultural land, out of the family lands. 3. The appellant’s case before the trial Court was that originally, the agricultural land was held by one Bhagwan Indani. He had two sons, namely, Eknath and Ramnath. Said Ramnath was unmarried and died somewhere in 1994. Eknath had four sons, namely, Radhakishan, Ghanashyam, Trimbak and Laxminarayan. The appellant is son of the eldest son of said Eknath. He asserted that he is Manager of the joint Hindu family and there was no division of the agricultural lands amongst the sons of Eknath including the father Radhakishan and the uncles, Ghanashyam, Trimbak and Laxminarayan. He, however, asserted that since Eknath had died on 13-12-1973, leaving behind him the four sons named above, during his lifetime, Ramnath gave five acres each to the four nephews by way of family arrangement and, therefore, each of them came into possession of separate five acres land, as per the family arrangement. As against this, it was case of the defendant that there was division of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds and the partition ( 3 ) was effected amongst four brothers. It was alleged that the suit land was allotted to the share of Ghanashyam. It was contended that Ghanashyam died during course of a vehicular accident in 2002 and, therefore, his son Shrikant became the exclusive owner of the suit land. It was contended that Shrikant sold it to Shaikh Karim and Manzur from whom it was purchased by the defendant. 4. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that the material evidence is overlooked by the Courts below in so far as absence of partition is concerned. He would submit that considering the rectification deed, it ought to have been held that Shrikant had no authority to alienate the disputed five acres land. He invited my attention to the observations of the trial Court as regards the suit instituted by one of the brothers i.e. Laxminarayan against the previous purchasers vide R.C.S. No. 305/2002. That suit was for perpetual injunction and came to be dismissed. Still, however, there was no finding of fact as regards absence of partition amongst Radhakishan, Ghanashyam, Trimbak and Laxminarayan. It does not stand to reason that the uncle could have ( 4 ) divided the land equally amongst the four brothers by way of family arrangement. This kind of contention is not supported by any record as such. Considering these aspects, the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court that the plaintiff could not be treated as karta of the joint Hindu family nor there is any joint Hindu family in existence, does not call for any interference. 5. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa326-09