: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.533 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.928 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.928 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.928 OF 2007 Mayappa Parasu Kamble ...Appellant V/s. Mallappa Parasu Kambale, Deceased, . Thru’ Savitri Mallappa Kambale & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.S. Ghadge, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.G.N. Salunkhe, Advocate, i/b. V.S. Kokitkar, for Respondent Nos.1/1, 1/3, 2 and 3. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate appearing for the appellant. Appellant is the 1st defendant. There is decree for partition and possession passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The submission is that there could not have been a decree for partition in respect of the agricultural land at village Garajgaon in as much as the said land was purchased by the appellant in proceedings under Section 32(g) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is submitted that there was no evidence lead by the original plaintiffs to show that the acquisition of the property was on behalf of the joint family. 2. I have considered the submissions. The Trial : 2 : Court has recorded a finding that on the basis of an application made by the appellant in March, 1981, a mutation entry was made in respect of the said lands by which on the application made by the appellant-1st defendant, the names of his brothers were mutated in revenue records. A case was sought to be made out by the appellant during the course of evidence that his thumb impression on the said application was forcibly obtained. However, there is nothing on record to show that from the year 1981 onwards any action was taken by the appellant to challenge the mutation entry. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts and findings recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No.928 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]