( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2009 Babu s/o Ganpat Chavan APPELLANT VERSUS Suraj s/o Sudhakar Nawale and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Murar V. Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The partition suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 was decreed. the learned Civil Judge directed to effect partition by allotting 1/4th share each to the respondents No. 1 to 3. The relationship is undisputed. The appellant is subsequent purchaser from defendant No. 2 Haryabai who had purchased part of the suit property from the original defendant No. 1 Sudhakar i.e. father ( 2 ) of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and husband of the plaintiff No.3. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. The only probable protection available to the appellant is that when the decree would be executed by the Collector under section 54 of the Civil Procedure, he may put forth his representation to the Collector for equitable partition. The Collector may consider his representation in order to adjust the equities as may be permissible under the law. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa581-09