( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3466 OF 2005 Bhagwangir s/o. Mohangir .. Appellant Versus Dharamgir s/o. Kisangir & ors. .. Respondents Shri S.K. Rahane, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.K. Rahane for the appellant. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken me through the judgments of the Courts below. There were three brothers, namely, Bhagwangir – who is present appellant, Kisangir – who is dead and whose respondent No.1 is son and Ramgir, who is father of respondent No.5 – Vasantgir. Other respondents are purchasers from Kisangir and Ramgir. The Trial Court and the ( 2 ) First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that already there was partition between the parties and Block No. 22 was allotted to Bhagwangir, Block No. 21 was allotted to Kisangir and Block No.23 was allotted to Ramgir. Block No. 15 was Inam land. It was also divided between the three brothers and middle portion was given to the present appellant. The appellant also admits all these things but says that it was family arrangement and the appellant has received less land to his share. 2. Now the law is well settled that the family arrangement has to be respected by the Courts. It is also well settled that in family arrangement, there may be give and take amongst the members of the family and some may get less or more share and that is no reason for the Court to interfere in the family arrangement. Since the said law is well settled and since family arrangement as stated above is not disputed even by the appellant, in my opinion, there is no reason for this Court to interfere. No substantial question of law arises. 3. Adv. Shri Rahane also stated that so far as middle portion of block No.15 is concerned, it is in possession of ( 3 ) the appellant and his possession is being disturbed by the respondent. He also states that he has right of way up to well but that is also disturbed. Said two issues are outside the scope of this present litigation. The injunction which is requested by the plaintiff was against alienation and not in respect of right of way or not to disturb his possession. In the facts and circumstances the appellant is at liberty to file separate suit in respect of said reliefs. 4. In the circumstances, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. 5. In view of disposal of this Second Appeal, Civil Application No.3466 of 2005 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa616.06