1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2006 Suhas Krishnarao Prabhushirodkar........Appellant versus Raghunath Sakharam Prabhushirodkar since deceased through his L.rs......... Respondents. Mr. G.J. Sabnis adv. for the Appellant Mr. G.H. Keluskar adv. for the respondent no.2 CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 05th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sabnis learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Keluskar for responent no.2. 2. The appellant is original defendant no.1 and respondent no.1 is the original Plaintiff. The respondent's suit for partition and separate possession was decreed by the trial court and this decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. Sabnis learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respodnent nos. 1 and 2 and the present appellant are brothers. The total agricultural land is about 66 acres. He does not dispute 1/3rd share of each of the appellant and the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sabnis however submit that respondent no.1 is residing in Mumbai, respondent no.2 is residing at Sawantwadi and the appellant was residing at native place where the suit property was situated. He further submitted 2 that out of the suit property 18 acres has developed by appellant out of the entire suit property and also constructed a residential house therein. On the basis of this submission he has prayed that the property which he has developed may be put to his possession in partition. 5. Mr. Keluskar learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has opposed this submission. Be that as it may the second appeal has already dismissed as against respondent nos. 1, 5, 6 and 8 to 16 for non removal of office objections, and this order has become final. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree has become final so far as respondent nos. 1,5, 6 and 8 to 16 are concerned. Therefore the appellant cannot at this stage insisted for equable partition against respondent no. 2 , 3 and 4 only. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid second appeal. However the appellant, at the stage of execution of the impugned decree, is at liberty to make a request to the lower court/concerned revenue officer to put him in the specific portion of the suit property in execution of the partition decree. If this request is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority after hearing all the parties concerned. This second appeal is accordingly disposed of. (R. V. More, J.)