(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 464/2010 Vitthal Zibal Wandile .VERSUS Bhaskar Nanaji Ikhar and another ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 20.01.2011. Shri J.R. Kidiley, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.R. Johrapurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents. The above Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2009 passed in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 182/2004 by which the decree of trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.166/2001 came to be set aside. The first Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the suit filed was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the predecessor of the vendor of the respondent no.1 herein, was not joined as a party to the suit, and also a fact that a mentally retarded person who was one of the defendants to the suit, permission in his respect was not (2) obtained in terms of order XXXII Rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure from the District Court. The suit property in question was a joint family property and the plaintiff's brother Rambhau had sold the property to the predecessor in title of the present respondent no.1. It was the case of the appellant herein that the decree which had been passed for partitioning the property including of share of Rambhau was agreed to be modified by exchanging the portion coming to the share of Rambhau being transferred to the plaintiff, as the same was contiguous to the plot which had come to the share of the plaintiff in partition. Though the said Rambhau had sold the plot of land which had come to his share to the predecessor in title of the vendor of the respondent no.1, the suit as found by the first Appellate Court was not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the judgment and orders of the Courts below. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd