-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2003 APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2003 APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2003 Krishna Dagdu Shejwal & Ors.. .. Appellants. Versus Govind Dagdu Shejwal... .. ... Respondent. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for the Appellants. Mr.Vilas Tapkir for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2005. : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2005. : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: This is the second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact in a suit for partition between the parties. There is no substantial question of law raised in the second appeal. Undisputedly, the distribution of property is basically the bone of contention and therefore in fact this Court had adjourned the matter for settlement. But it appears that the settlement is not possible. After considering the rival contentions and after going through the record and the reasonings given by the Courts below, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact given by the Courts below. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- -: 2 :- (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)