1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.498 of 2006. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.Amol Mardikar,Adv.for the appellant. CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 4th October, 2006. 1. Heard Mr.Mardikar, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property, treating the same as an ancestral property. 3. The plaintiff contended that he has 1/5th share in the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that there was already a partition in the life time of the father of the plaintiff and the defendants and as such the suit is not maintainable. The learned judge of the trial court affirmed the contention of the plaintiff that it was a joint family property and negated the 2 contention of the defendants that there was already a partition 20 years back. Defendant no.1 had preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court also concurred with the finding of the lower court. 3. Mr.Mardikar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the judgment of the first appellate court is perverse in as much as the lower court had failed to consider the admission given by the plaintiff that there was a partition. In this regard it may be noted that the learned judge of the appellate court has observed that the admission given by the plaintiff is a stray admission and, therefore, was not enough to say that there was already a partition. Both the courts below have considered the evidence of number of witnesses, which were examined in the case. I do not see any perversity in the finding recorded by the learned judge of the appellate court. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. JUDGE pzc