1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 288 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6292 of 2010 Narsing S/o Santaram Gaddime .. APPELLANT (Ori. Deft.No. 2) VERSUS Dhananjay S/o Santaram Gaddime .. RESPONDENT ( Ori. Plaintiff) ... Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocates for Appellant Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The present appellant is the original defendant No.2. The present respondent has filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit property. The said suit came to be decreed. The present appellant i.e. original defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the 2 Trial Court. Defendant No. 2 has approached this Court assailing the Judgment of the Courts below. 2. Shri Nagargoje, the learned Counsel for the appellant,vehemently contended that the plaintiff himself had executed the sale-deed (Exh. 58) in the year 1995. In that view, he shall not get any right in the suit property. He further contended that if the whole land is admeasuring 11 Acres and 07 Guntha and if the plaintiff wants to seek partition,he should partition the total ancestral property and not only part of the suit property. He also further contended that the registered partition deed was executed in the year 2005. He further submitted that the Courts below have not appreciated the document at (Exh. 58) in its correct perspective and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion. 3. Per contra, Shri Gunale, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that document (Exh. 58) is not proved. The document (Exh. 59) i.e. registered partition does not 3 spell any thing about the earlier partition, in the year 1995, nor the plaintiff was party to the said partition deed. According to him, the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record. If, according to the defendant No. 2 partition was already effected in the year 1995, there was no reason to enter into fresh partition deed in the year 2005. The Courts below have discussed about the veracity of the document of the year 1995, and have held that the said document has not been proved. Further contention of Shri Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the appellant, that partition of the whole property is not being asked, cannot be sustained, for the reason that the father of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant No. 2 had jointly sold the property and none of the parties had objected to the said transaction, nor the defendant No. 2 has pleaded about this fact. 4 4. In the light of the above, and in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. As such, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 6292 of 2010 does not survive and same is also disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 288.10SA