1 SA 159/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2011 Dnyanoba Laxman Kad & Anr. .. Appellants V/s Subhash Tukaram Kad & ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.B. Tajane for the appellants. Mr. Rajendra Singh Thakur i/b Mr. Abhay Kumar for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 P.C. : 1. The present appellants are the heirs of Laxman Aba Kad, who were the original defendants. The contesting respondents are the heirs of Tukaram Kad, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents (heirs of Tukaram) in their suit claimed that there was a partition between Laxman and Tukaram wherein the suit property, which forms southern portion of gat no. 438, was allotted to the share of Tukaram. The written memorandum of partition was filed in the trial Court at Exhibit 88. According to the respondents, the appellants committed an encroachment on a portion of their property allotted to the 2 SA 159/2011 share of Tukaram in partition. They therefore filed a suit for a declaration of their ownership and removal of encroachment. The trial Court held that the respondents had proved that Tukaram had become owner of the suit property by partition and that the appellants had committed encroachment over the suit property. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decision. 2. The question whether there was a partition between Tukaram and Laxman and whether the suit property was allotted to the share of Tukaram is a question of fact. That question has been answered in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents. The finding that the appellants had committed an encroachment on the property allotted to the share of Tukaram is also a finding of fact which is recorded concurrently by the two Courts below. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the second appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree is for removal of encroachment. An order of status quo was passed by this Court on 11th March 2011 and is in force since then. He prays for an extension of that order for some 3 SA 159/2011 time to enable the appellants to obtain stay by filing further appeal. It is accordingly ordered that the order of status quo granted by this Court on 11th March 2011 shall remain in force for a period of 8 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)