-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2007 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1554 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.1554 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.1554 OF 2004 Shrishail Sidramappa Nadgiri & anr. ...Applicants vs. Mahesh Mallinath Nadgiri & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.K.Suryacodashi for the Applicants Ms Premlata Madavi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are served. Heard the Advocate for the Applicant and the advocate for the second Respondent. An Affidavit of the second Respondent together with its translation is taken on record. 2. The Application is opposed by the Advocate for the second Respondent on the ground that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below that the suit property is an ancestral property. She submitted that the Applicants/Appellants are in possession of the property and they are enjoying the same. 3. The Second Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Hence, the property cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. As far as the alleged enjoyment of the suit property by the -2- Applicants is concerned, the second Respondent can always take out appropriate application seeking appropriate relief. 4. Subject to what is stated above, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that the partition proceedings will go on. However, actual physical partition by metes and bounds shall not be effected till the final disposal of the Appeal. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE