1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.685 OF 2006. Ramkrishna Narayanrrao Raut ..vs.. Bhaskarrao Narayanrao Raut. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 4th April, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.V.R.Mundra, Advocate for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal by the original defendant against whom a decree has been passed by the first appellate court. 3. The respondent had instituted a suit for possession of the land in suit on the basis of partition said to have been taken place in the year 1969. 4. The defendant had resisted the suit on the ground that the partition of 1969 was a 2 nominal one and actual partition had taken place in the year 1976. The learned Judge of the trial court found that the plaintiff's contention was not correct and in 1976 there was a partition. Holding so, learned judge of the trial court dismissed the suit. 5. The first appellate court, however, did not concur with the findings of the trial court and found that the partition had taken place in the year 1969 itself and the plaintiff was entitled to possession as per that 1969 partition. 6. After having gone through the judgment of the first appellate court, it appears to me that the first appellate court has rightly considered the evidence. It appears that the present appellant had instituted a suit against the present respondent for partition of the property left behind by their mother. In the said suit, the present appellant has specifically alleged that the property was allotted to mother in the partition of 1969. When such a stand was taken by the present appellant in that suit, he could not resile from it and he is estopped from contending otherwise. The learned judge of the first appellate court, therefore, has rightly found that 1969 partition 3 was final and last partition and no second partition had taken place. I do not see that there is any perversity in the findings arrived at by the first appellate court. The reasons given appear to me to be sound. There is no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE chute