IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.611 OF 2003. APPEAL NO.611 OF 2003. APPEAL NO.611 OF 2003. Pralhad Mahadu Jagtap ...Appellant Versus. Balu Anandram Jagtap & Ors. ...Respondents Shri C.T.Chandratre for the Appellant. Shri Vinod Shah for the Respondent Nos.1 to 15. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th MARCH, 2008. : 11th MARCH, 2008. : 11th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard advocate appearing for the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession which is dismissed by the trial Court and appeal preferred by the appellant stands dismissed by the first Appellate Court. 2. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that there was no evidence on record to show that in 1932 there was a partition by metes and bounds between the members of the family. He submitted that certain mutation entries which are referred to by the courts below cannot be the evidence of partition by metes and bounds and unless it was established by the respondents that there was a partition by metes and bounds, the suit filed by the appellants could not have been dismissed. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. : 2 : 2 : 2 : There was a suit filed in the year 1932 in which a consent decree was passed. The finding of the courts below is that under the said consent decree there was a partition between the appellant’s father and other co-sharers and the appellant’s father got separated. The courts below have referred to mutation entry made in the year 1934 by which an effect was given in the revenue record to the consent decree passed in the earlier suit. There are further mutation entries made which show that there were further partitions effected between the members of family. The said further partitions were made in the year 1944, 1960 and 1965 to which the appellant’s father never objected. On the basis of the documentary evidence on record, there is a finding of fact recorded by the courts below that the appellant’s father had already separated in the year 1932 by virtue of the consent decree passed in the earlier suit for partition. There is a finding of fact that partition decree of the year 1932 was acted upon and a mutation entry was made in the year 1934 on the basis of said decree. 4. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. : 3 : 3 : 3 : Judge. Judge. Judge.