sa55.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2011 TOTARAM MHATARJI JAMDHADE VERSUS CHANDRABHAN BHUJANGRAO SHRIKHANDE AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Palodkar Deodatt P. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: November 18, 2011 ... Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. He submits that there was no partition by metes and bounds and only family arrangement was made. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in respect of sale deed dated 1st June, 1999 should have been allowed. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the property which is sold by the defendant No. 2 belongs to the joint family since there is no partition by metes and bounds. Therefore, he would submit that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the sa55.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ family arrangement is one of the modes of the partition, does not find any place in law. Therefore, according to him, the appeal deserves to be considered. 2 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusal of the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below and in particular, the observations of the trial Court in para 7 of the impugned judgment, I find that in the year, 1996, father of the plaintiff had made family arrangement amongst his sons. That arrangement was made with an intention to resolve the disputes amongst brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 all are four brothers. Equal portion of land was allotted to each brother under the alleged family arrangement. The trial Court has also discussed about the field bearing Gut No.543 which was also equally partitioned amongst all the brothers. So far sa55.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ as this family arrangement is concerned, the appellant has not disputed the said fact before the trial Court. 3 Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court in its judgment that there was family arrangement and there was equal portion of land allotted to each brother, needs no interference. Both the courts have concurrently held that there was allotment of family property in equal shares. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in this second appeal. Second appeal stands dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*