1 SA614.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2011 Shri Poshya Nagya Langi (since deceased through L.Rs.) 1. Kamlabai Sadashiv Mhatre & ors. ... Appellants v/s Shri Shankar Laxman Langi & ors. ... Respondents Mrs.Teja Katdare for the appellants. Mr.Shreekant V. Gavand for Resp. Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The appellant was defendant No.6 before the Trial Court claiming that the partition of the joint family property had taken place earlier in 1965 by way of an oral partition and that therefore the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff should be dismissed. Reliance was placed by the defendant No.6 on revenue entries and the receipt showing that he had 2 SA614.11 purchased mango saplings for planting them in the disputed property which he claimed he was cultivating independently. Defendant No.6 examined one witness in order to prove the oral partition. However, his evidence has not been believed by both the Courts below. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that there is no evidence to prove the oral partition which had allegedly taken place in 1965. 2. The learned advocate for the defendant No.6 has submitted that the revenue entries and the receipt from the agricultural officer at Exh.54 for the mango saplings are significant documents which indicate that the partition had taken place. She also submits that the plaintiff has admitted that they are all residing separately as seen from the revenue record and, therefore, according to her, the Courts below have incorrectly appreciated this evidence. 3. In my opinion, in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below that there was no previous partition, there is no need to interfere with the same under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from this, cogent reasons have been stated in the judgments impugned as to why the revenue record and the evidence of the witness of defendant No.6 has been disbelieved. 3 SA614.11 4. No substantial question of law arises and hence the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.1276 of 2008 does not survive and stands dismissed as such. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 4 SA614.11