1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.708 OF 2007 Shivajirao Anna Shevale ..Appellant V/s. Akaram Anna Shevale & anr. ..Respondents Mr.R.S.Ghadge, advocate, for appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . The appeal is by unsuccessful first defendant in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the first respondent. The Appellate Court decreed the suit. In appeal the decree has been confirmed. 2. The first submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that there was a prior partition effected between the parties in the year 1962 which was evidenced by a document at Exh.152. 2 He submitted that a finding recorded in earlier suit between the parties on the said document cannot operate as res-judicata as it was a suit filed by the appellant simplicitor for injunction. His second submission is that there was a specific pleading in the Written Statement of the appellant that certain properties which could have been subjected to partition have not been included in the description of the suit properties in the present suit. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. Insofar as the first submission is concerned, in earlier suit between the same parties the document at Exh.152 has been discarded by the Civil Court and finding of the Civil Court has been affirmed in appeal. Now the appellant cannot rely upon the same document and contend that it constitutes evidence of prior partition. 4. Insofar as the second contention is 3 concerned, plea raised in the Written Statement is very vague. All that is stated by the appellant/first defendant is that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has not claimed any share in the properties purchased by the second defendant(second respondent). The Appellate Court has observed there is no specific pleading that the properties purchased by the second respondent were joint family properties which could have been subjected to partition. 5. In view of concurrent findings, no case is made out for interference. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.1307 of 2007 does not survive and same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)