1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.315 OF 2009. Ashok S/o Tapiram Patil ... Appellant. Versus Narayan S/o Tapiram Patil since deceased through his legal heirs Smt.Chandrakalabai W/o Narayan Patil and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.P.Dhorde, advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.B.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.lA to lD. Respondent No.2 served. Respondent NO.1E deleted. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard counsel. 2. The appellant is original defendant No. 1. He is the younger brother of the Respondent 2 NO.1 (plaintiff). The Respondent No.1 filed suit for partition and separate possession (RCS No. 20/2002) claiming his share in respect of the agricultural land bearing Gat No.252/1 situated at village Latur. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal bearing RCA No.41/2006. The Courts below have held that the appellant and the Respondent No.1 along with their sister i.e. original defendant No.2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit land. 3. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the suit land was held separately by father of the parties, namely Tapiram Patil on account of partition between him and the sons. The contention of the appellant in both the Courts was that the father had applied for transfer of the suit land in his name way back in 1982 and had given him the suit land. His name was entered in the revenue records and continued to appear till death of Tapiram. However, no objection was raised by the plaintiff till that time i.e. till 26.9.1993 from about 3 eleven (11) years. It was contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the partition effected by father in 1982 ought to be regarded as binding on the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of material placed on record, it is held by both the Courts below that mere mutation entries would not bestow title of the suit land in favour of the defendant No.1. It is to be noted that the father did not execute any will-deed or a gift deed in his favour. A mere application to the Revenue Officer (Talathi) to transfer the suit land in name of the defendant No.1 (appellant) could not mean relinquishment of the rights by the father in his name or internal partition effected by father in the manner as contended by him. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not susceptible to interference. The Second Appeal is outside the scope of Section 100 of the C.P.C. and in view of "Gurdev Kaur and others Vs.Kaki and others" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 4 1975, the same is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa31509