1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Second Appeal St. No.6195 of 2009 [Manohar Y. Revatkar & ors. Vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tirora & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.Z. Sonbhadre, Adv., for the appellants. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 13th July, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.Z. Sonbhadre for the appellants. Perused the Judgments. 2. The appellants herein are heirs of original plaintiff who had filed a suit simpliciter seeking a direction to mutate his name in Municipal record relating to ownership of suit property, namely Plot No. 1442, Gat No. 93/47 of Gandhi Ward, Tiroda. 3. The suit was filed presumptively on the foundation that the mutation was effected without following the course of law and without 2 notice etc. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 pleaded ownership rights on the basis of Memorandum of Partition. 5. It is not disputed that Memorandum of Partition, though under objection as to admissibility, can always be used for collateral purposes. 6. The finding recorded by the Trial Court that by virtue of the said document of partition, the suit plot had gone to the share of defendant nos. 2 to 5, is challenged on the ground of reliance on the Memorandum of Partition. Trial Court found that the property had gone to the share of said defendants and, therefore, recorded a finding that plaintiff and Namdeo, the father of defendant Nos. 2 to 5, had jointly succeeded to the said plot. Thus, as the plaintiff had failed in proving his title, no relief was granted in his favour. 7. The said finding of fact recorded by Trial Court is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 8. The grounds of appeal, which were reiterated as Substantial Questions of Law, are not adequate enough to show that the finding suffers from perversity or any illegality. 3 9. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4