IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY C IVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2009 Keshav Ganpat Shinde Since deceased , Per Lrs. 1A.Sindhuai Keshav Shinide & Ors. ... Appellants (Orig. Defendants) Vs. Sitabai Mhatraba Shnde ... Respondent (Orig.Plaintiffs) Mr. Jaydeep S.Deo, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 20th July, 2009. P.C. 1. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.191 1998 for specific peformance of an agreement for sale in respect of 41 Ares land out of Gat No. 64. The agreement was entered into by the deceased Keshav Ganpat Shinde in 1980. According to the respondent, whole of the consideration amount was paid and possession was also given to her. The sale deed was to be executed only after the entries about partition between Keshav and his brother Mhasu Ganpat Shinde, who is appellant No.2,were taken in the Record of Rights. Keshav, who was the original defendant No.1, denied to execute the sale deed. The defendants contended that the property was a joint family property of deceaed defendant No.1 Keshav and defendant No.2 Mhasu and partition never took place. The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and passed the decree for specific performance of contract. That judgment was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No.22 of 2003 by the L.rs of the deceased defenant No.1 Keshav and also by defendant No.2, who are the present appellants. That appeal came to be dismissed. Both the Courts below rejected the contention of the defendants that no partition had taken place. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs pointed out that in his evidence, the appellant No.1B – Balu alias Raosaheb Keshav Shnde had admitted that all the properties were partitioned between his father and uncle Mhasu excpt the land Gat No.64. About that land also he only claimed that he had no knowledge if partition had taken place. 3. Taking into consideration the contents of the agreement for sale which was executed by Keshav and the nature of evidence led by the appellants, I find no question of law involved in the present Appeal, particularly in view of the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 4. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, nothing survives in the Civil Applicaion and stands dispsed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)