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 SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.797 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.797 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.797 OF 2007 Shri Rangnath Amruta Chitte : Appellant. Versus Shri Shivaji Kashinath Chitte & ors. : Respondents. Mr.R.A.Thorat i/by Mr.Tushar Sonawane for the appellant Mr.Rahul Matkari for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. : JULY 07, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this Second Appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment and decree dated 15th January 2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No.253 of 2002. 2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff who had filed a suit beinh Regular Civil Suit No.150 of 1995 against the Respondents i.e. the original 2 Defendants for possession of Gat No.151 situated at Ambaner. It was the case of the Appellant in the said suit that in the year 1948 he was driven out of the joint family by the Respondents’ father and other family members. Thereafter the Appellant cultivated the said land as a tenant with the consent of its owner and finally became owner of the half portion of the said land after paying the purchase ;price of the said land. The certificate under Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act was also issued in the name of the Appellant in the year 1988. 3. The Respondents filed their written statement and also filed the counter claim against the Appellant. It was the case of the Respondents/Defendants that the said land i.e. Gat No.151 came to the share of their father in partition which took place in the year 1961. 4. The Trial Court on the basis of the memorandum of partition which was duly proved by the Defendants through their witnesses and on the basis of the admission of the Plaintiff that he had signed the said memorandum of partition recorded a finding of fact that by virtue of said memorandum of partition the said land in question i.e. Gat No.151 had come to the 3 share of the father of Respondents and, therefore, dismissed the suit. As regards the objection of the Appellant that the memorandum of partition has not registered, the trial Court held that a family arrangement can be arrived at orally and does not require compulsory registration. It has further held that an unregistered memorandum of partition can be used for colateral purposes of proving the intention to partition. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the Appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.253 of 2002 in the District Court, Nashik. The learned Principal District Judge, Nashik confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the said Regular Civil Appeal No.253 of 2002. 6. Both the Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact after considering the documentary evidence that was before them. In my view, the challenge in the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]