1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1423 OF 2009 Rajendra Shankar Inde ..... Appellant vs. Shri Nagendra Shankar Inde ..... Respondent Mr.Surel S. Shah, Advocate for appellant. Mr.R.S. Apte i/by Mr.A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 18th November, 2009. PC : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19th September 2003 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for partition. By consent of both the learned counsels, the appeal is taken up for hearing immediately. Records and proceedings is dispensed with. Heard both the learned counsels. 2. There is no dispute that the property sought to be partitioned is joint family property. The trial Court granted partition by declaring that the parties to the suit i.e. two brothers are entitled to 1/2 share each, therein. The appellant had contended before the trial Court that the property was already partitioned by virtue of an oral partition and that parties have been enjoying 2 separate possession of their respective portions. He further claims to have spent substantial amount for evicting one of the tenants from the suit property. His grievance is that the trial Court has not considered sharing of those expenses. At the same time, the appellant admits that he has exclusively enjoyed the rent received from the tenant during the subsistence of tenancy and enjoyed the demised premises after recovery of the same from the tenant. It has been observed by the trial Court that considering these facts, any sharing of compensation payable to the appellant is evened out. The trial Court also held that there was no evidence whatsoever produced by the appellant in support of his claim of oral partition. 3. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and decree. The decision of the trial Court is justified by the evidence led by the parties. The same is correct and reasonable view taken and does not require any interference. There is no dispute arising for consideration of this Court except that stated above. In the circumstance, the First Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.1423 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)