IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.161 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2008 Shri Baban Moru Chandere )..Appellant V/s. Chima Dhondiba Chandere(deceased) ) his L.R’s & Ors. )..Respondents W I T H SECOND APPEAL NO.126 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.356 OF 2008 Shri Keru Moru Chandere & Ors. )..Appellants Versus Chima Dhondiba Chandere (deceased) ) his L.R.’s & ors. )..Respondents ---- Mrs.Rajani Iyyer i/by S.A.Sawant for the appellants. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by G.B.Badiger for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 2.5.2008. PC 1. Both these appeals are filed against the same impugned judgment and order of the two lower courts and therefore, they can be disposed off together particularly since they purport to raise same substantial questions of law. 2. The appellant in Second Appeal No.161/2008 Baban Moru Chandere was the original plaintiff for the : 2 : purpose of suit for partition and separate possession. His real brother was the original defendant no.4 in that suit. Their common ancestor and father Moru was expired in the year 1943. Moru had a brother Dhondiba who expired in the year 1935. The other defendants in the suit were defendant no.1 Chima the son of Dhondiba and his two sons defendant nos.2 & 3 and upon his death, his other heirs were also impleaded in the suit. The case of the plaintiff was there was a family arrangement and in the said family arrangement a division was made in respect of the family lands and respective shares as specified in the plaint went to the share of the plaintiff and the defendants. In the plaint it did not specify even the year as to when this family arrangement took place. The case of the defendant however, was that there was a separate khata between Dhondiba and Moru even prior to Dhondiba’s death in the year 1935. The record indicates that separate mutation entries existed showing separate shares of Dhondiba and Moru. By mutation entry no.516 dated 14.10.1935 the name of defendant Chima was impleaded on the death of his father on 1.8.1935. Since 1935, the record of rights shows the various properties in this mutation were standing in the name of Chima. This mutation entry is at Exhibit-108. The other mutation entry at Exhibit-109 bearing mutation entry no.659. This mutation entry pertains to the mutation of various properties in the name of Keru, after the death of Moru on 11.10.1943. The appellate : 3 : Court has also pointed out that this position was reflected in the revenue record even prior to 1935 and in fact from the years 1923-24. 3. As against this, so called oral family arrangement has been vaguely pleaded and there is no proof. There is concurrent findings of both the Courts and in the circumstances, there are no substantial questions of law arise in these appeals and both these appeals stand dismissed. On behalf of the appellants a request is made to continue the interim relief granted by this Court on 11.3.2008. Counsel for original defendant nos.1, 2, & 3 and defendants 1-a to 1-h makes a statement that for a period of four weeks from today, his clients will not create any third party interest or part with possession of the suit property in respect of which the claim of the original plaintiff is dismissed. Statement is accepted. (1) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2008 (2) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.356 OF 2008 1. As both the appeals are dismissed, Civil Applications does not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)