IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2008 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1334 OF 2008 Shri Satyawan Waman Khadtale. ... Appellant. V/s. Manohar Waman Khadtale, since deceased through his Legal Heirs & Representative Rahul Manohar Khadtale and others. ... Respondents. P.N.Joshi for the appellant. C.G.Gavnekar for respondent Nos.1 to 7. P.L.Bhujbal for respondent Nos.9 and 10. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 24th September 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2. The original plaintiffs filed suit for partition and possession. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 25th September, 2001. However, while dismissing the suit, trial Court recorded a positive finding that the appellants- original plaintiffs were entitled to ½ share in the land Gat No.306 to the extent of 27 R. only and ½ share in the suit house. However, since the plaintiffs were already in possession thereof, no positive decree with possession was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. This finding has become final and conclusive since the defendants have not filed any appeal to challenge the said order. 3. However, the original plaintiffs chose to prefer first appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Niphad contending that the finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous. 4. The lower appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record and submissions advanced by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellants- original plaintiffs were not entitled to ½ share as determined by the trial Court but were entitled 4 Anne i.e. ¼ share only. However, since there was no cross-objection/ cross appeal preferred by the defendants, the lower appellate Court found it impossible to set aside the finding of the trial Court recorded in favour of the appellants/ plaintiffs that they were entitled to ½ share. As a matter of fact, had there been cross-objection preferred by the respondents/ defendants the ½ share would have been reduced. As on date, the order of the trial Court as well as that of lower appellate Court are not adverse to the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants took a strong objection to the adverse finding recorded by the lower appellate Court contending that the finding is erroneous. 6. Be that as it may, the challenge is academic. The finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be faulted. Though lower appellate Court has recorded a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the trial Court, but in ultimate analysis, the decree granted by the Trial Court has not been disturbed by the lower appellate Court. In this view of the matter, challenge set up in this appeal is academic as stated herein. 7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, no injustice is caused to the appellants. In totality, no substantial question of law warranting adjudication at the hands of this Court is involved in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law, with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. 8. In view of dismissal of appeal, civil application does not survive. The same is disposed of as infructuous with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA J.)