( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2008 Kasturchand s/o Motisa Kanhed APPELLANT VERSUS Prabhakar s/o Motisa Kanhed and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Pawankumar S. Agrawal, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit (R.C.S. No. 122/2001) filed by respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff). He had filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of house property bearing Municipal Council No. 27/159 situated at Hingoli and injunction. The ( 2 ) dismissal decree was reversed by the first Appellate Court, on the ground that relinquishment of rights by the respondent No. 1 – Prabhakar could not be recognized in as much as there was no registered relinquishment deed. The first Appellate Court held that reference of such relinquishment in terms of compromise or in an application submitted to the Municipal Council by itself would not be sufficient to reach conclusion that the share was given up by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). So, the Suit came to be decreed. 3. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the terms of the compromise (Exh-50) are not properly interpreted by the first Appellate Court. He would submit that the findings of the first Appellate Court are improper and perverse. 4. The first Appellate Court noticed that the trial Court gave much importance to statement in an application submitted by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) wherein he had stated on affidavit that he did not have any other house in Hingoli. The first ( 3 ) Appellate Court held that such a statement by itself cannot amount to surrender of the rights by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff). The first Appellate Court noticed that terms of the compromise (Exh-50) indicated that the suit house property was partitioned earlier and there was no question of surrendering the plaintiff’s share as per terms thereof. In fact, the terms of compromise indicated that the original defendant No.2 - Suryakant i.e. the respondent No. 2 had agreed to give half acre agricultural land in favour of the plaintiff – Prabhakar for consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. There was no question of surrender of the rights by the plaintiff – Prabhakar in respect of the right available to him in the house property. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff – Prabhakar had not surrendered his right in the suit house property which was already partitioned prior to about 30/32 years. This is a finding of fact as such. No substantial question of law as such is involved in this appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, ( 4 ) civil application No. 6587/2008 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa435-08