{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1734 OF 2005 [WITH CA NO.12737 OF 2005] Manikrao Narayanrao Chavan R/o Hatola Tq. Ambajogai Dist. Beed. APPELLANT VERSUS 01- Chivalabai w/o Rambhau Somwanshi 02- Dhondiram s/o Baliram Chavan Both R/o Hatola Tq. Ambajogai Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS. *** Shri P.S.Chavan, advocate for appellant *** Coram : P.R.BORKAR, J. Date: 17th June 2009. P.C.: 01- Respondent No.1 Chivalabai has filed suit for partition and separate possession. She is sister of respondent no.2 Dhondiram Chavan who is original defendant no.1. The appellant is purchaser from defendant no.1. Both the trial Court and first appellate Court have concurrently held that the property belonged to Krishnabai who was mother of respondents and as such respondent no.1 has one half share in the property. 02- It is argued before me that the original sale-deed in favour of Krishnabai is not produced on record. However, the first appellate Court has {2} considered this aspect in para no.9 of the judgment and it is clear that the sale-deed in favour of Krishnabai was executed by Baliram on 08/09/1945 and thereafter the property was in the name of Krishnabai d/o Govind and the revenue records right from 1955 onwards are in the name of Krishnabai and there are Pahani Patrak, Khasra Patrak and 7/12 extracts to show that Krishnabai was the owner and possessor of the property all along. Only because the original registered sale-deed in favour of Krishnabai was not produced, which was registered, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the property was not of Krishnabai and respondent no.1 has no one half share. 03- The appellate Court has considered the defence of the plaintiff that the property was exclusively belonging to defendant no.1 and it is negatived. There are concurrent findings of facts and the appeal cannot be admitted. 04- Shri Chavan states that nothing is said about the rights of the appellant. So far as share of Dhondiram is concerned, which is purchased by the appellant, the trial Courts order speaks that the plaintiff / respondent no.1 is entitled to partition and separate possession of one half share. It does not speak about dispossession of the appellant from one half share of defendant no.1. So in this context no further directions are required. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. 05- Civil Application No.12737/2005 does not survive in view of disposal of the Appeal. [P.R.BORKAR] JUDGE. /mda/0609/sa1734.05