1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1367 OF 2004. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 28.10.2010. 1. This is Second Appeal by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had filed suit for separate possession in respect of various suit properties. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted half share in land Gat Nos.154, 112, 113. The defendant No.1 preferred an appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and granted share to the plaintiff only in land Gat No. 154 admeasuring 2 hectares 57 ares. The plaintiff was not given any share in respect of the other properties. The defendant No.1 has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Dhase, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that said Gat No.154 was allotted to the share of Devidas, who died in the year 1996. Thereafter, there was an oral partition and the said property Gat No.154 was mutated in the name of Ramchandra and defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has also proved oral partition by examining the witnesses in whose presence the partition had taken place. Mr.Dhase, learned counsel further submitted that the mutation entry in the name of defendant No.1 in exclusion of the plaintiff would substantiate the said fact. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgment delivered by both the Courts. It is not disputed that the said property was an ancestral property owned by Gangadhar, Devidas and Ramchandra. The partition was effected between these three brothers. Gangadhar died in the year 1952, was the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1. Devidas and Ramchandra both died issueless. This land Gat No.154 was held by Devidas i.e. the uncle of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The theory of oral partition put forth by the defendant No.1 was not proved. Moreover, the same is about appreciation of evidence. The conclusion arrived at is plausible conclusion and the same can not be a substantial question of law. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.28.10.2010 asp/office/sa1367.04