-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.1088 OF 2006 NO.1088 OF 2006 NO.1088 OF 2006 Arvind Purushottam Barve ...Appellant v/s Sou. Pushpalata S. Janorkar and ors. ...Respondents Mr Shriram S. Kulkarni for Appellant. None for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J. DATE : 20TH JULY 2007. -2- P.C. :- 1. The case of the plaintiff was that the original defendant No.1 was of unsound mind. Without joining guardian-at-litem for him, the suit proceeded. The appeal Court, in my opinion, has rightly held that the Trial Court could not have itself compared the signature and recorded a finding that the partition never took place. When an entry is made in the revenue record because the entry is made in regular course of business, a presumption attaches to it. The burden therefore was entirely on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not discharged that burden. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, I do not find that the Appeal Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is rejected. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary as true copy. . Certified copy expedited.