3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.K.Naikwade,Advocate for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed Suit for partition and separate possession on the ground that in the year 1983, collusive suits were filed by respondents against each other and compromise was shown to have been entered into. The same would not be binding on the plaintiff as the plaintiff was not party to the said Suit. The trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiff preferred Appeal. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court except to the extent of share. Being aggrieved by 3 the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. Naikwade, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being the daughter of Maruti, she had the share in the suit property. The appellant was not a party to the compromise allegedly effectuated in the Suits filed in the year 1983 by the respondents against each other and Maruti. As the said compromise was not legal and valid, the present appellant was also not party to the same, the rights of the appellant could not have been affected by the said collusive compromise decree. The learned counsel further submits that one Navnath was minor on the date of compromise and he was shown major. This fact itself vitiates the whole compromise. The learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff would be entitled to the share in the suit property. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. The relations between the parties are not disputed. The plaintiff would get share from the share of Maruti. The partition was effected in the year 1975, which is evidenced by the compromise decree between the parties. As such, the Courts 3 have rightly granted to the plaintiff the share from Maruti. The rights of the present defendants were crystalized in the year 1983 itself. 6. In light of the above, no error has been committed by the Courts below. The present Second Appeal sans substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 132.2008