1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.676/06. Domsing Bhavsing Rathod. ..vs.. Sahebrao Thawra and anr. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 27th February, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.S.U.Nemade, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.V.Bhide, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom a decree was passed by the trial court and which is confirmed by the appellate court. 3. It was the contention of the plaintiffs/ respondents that the appellant/defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit field and he was, therefore, liable to deliver back the possession to the plaintiffs. It was also their contention that the 2 partition had taken place between their father, defendant and his other brother Sangaji in 1963 and the plaintiffs were, therefore, in possession of the suit field of which they were dispossessed. 4. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that there was no partition in 1963 and he has been in possession of suit field since long and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the theory of partition has been proved by the plaintiffs. The defendant has failed to prove that he was in adverse possession of the property. Holding so, the decree for possession was passed. The first appellate court, as said earlier, confirmed the decree. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant contended that there is in fact no evidence whatsoever of partition of 1963. He submitted that the fact that there was no partition in 1963 is clear from the fact that right from 1963 to 1970, no entry whatsoever was taken in revenue record with regard to that partition. This cannot be disputed. It is apparent from the judgments of the courts below that right from 1970 onwards there has been separate entry in the revenue record and they 3 show that they were taken as per partition effected between the parties. Name of each of the brothers is separately shown in the revenue record right from 1970. The defendant never challenged these entries at all. Thus, these entries, therefore, stand as they are. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that those entries in the revenue record do not confer any title. Though it is a fact that those entries do not confer any title but in the instant case the entries have been taken on the basis of oral partition between the parties. Therefore, if there was oral partition, revenue entries are best piece of evidence to show that there was partition amongst the co- parceners. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence in the matter. I do not see any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc