1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.159 OF 2009 Vishwasrao Gulabrao Shitole .. Appellant. -versus Bajirao Gulabrao Shitole and ors .. Respondents Shri P.K.Hushing, for the appellant CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J DATED: 21st July, 2009. P.C. 1. Original defendant Nos l to 4 filed Civil Appeal No.123 of 2000, challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Daund, in R.C.S. No.82 of l978, instituted by the first respondent-original plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition and possession in respect of properties as more particularly set out in paragraph l(a) and l(b) of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that these were the properties of the deceased Gulabrao. After his death, the 2 other properties were purchased by utilizing income of the joint family and consequently they are the joint family properties of the plaintiff. The said Gulabrao died in the year l949 and original defendant No.l Vishwasrao being the elder member was the Karta of the family. It is his case that nominal partition was effected in the year l957 only with a view to saving the properties from the provisions of Land Ceiling Act. Actually no partition took place in the year l957. 2. As against this, it is the case of the original defendant No.1 to 4 that partition of the property was effected in the year l957 and mutation entry to that effect was made. Pursuant thereto, lands were recorded in the name of the plaintiff and his brothers separately. In view of this it was contended that there was no joint family after the partition in l957. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the footing that no partition was effected in the year l957. In fact document of partition was prepared in the year l971 which indicated that there was no partition in the year l957. 3 3. Being aggrieved by this decision, the original defendant Nos l to 4 preferred appeal before learned District Judge. By judgment and decree dated l7th April, 2008, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. 4. Mr.Hushing learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issues were not correctly framed by the Trial Court. There was partition of the property in the year l957. He further submitted that after the partition, defendant No.l had purchased the lands, out of the income of his own business and consequently no decree for partition in respect of these properties could be passed. The learned District Judge has considered this aspect as also the other material on record as would be evident from the perusal of paragraphs 22 to 28. She also noted that the document dated 26th May, l97l at exh 71 signed by the defendant No.l was prepared. These documents indicated that there was no partition in the year l957-58. Even the mother of plaintiff and defendant Nol specifically stated that there was no partition of the joint Hindu family by metes and bounds. 4 5. Both the Courts below have recorded that the partition between the parties was not effected in the year l957. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. Appeal is dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)