1 SA-67-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2011 Namdeo Baban Pawar ..Appellant Vs Machindra Ramchandra Pawar and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.A.B.Tajane, for appellant. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: The original plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21 st July, 2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.163 of 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed-Rajgurunagar, District Pune as also the judgment and decree dated 4 th December, 2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.609 of 2008 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Pune. By these judgments, the Courts below dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and perpetual injunction. 2 SA-67-11.odt 2] Heard Mr.Tajane, learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the Courts below committed serious error in accepting the case of the respondents - original defendant nos.1 to 4 that there was previous partition in the family in the year 1964. He submitted that the conclusion of the Courts below is based upon the joint application made by Baban (father of plaintiff) and Ramchandra (father of defendant nos.1 to 4) before the Consolidation Officer. The said application was produced at exhibit 97. He submitted that there are manipulations and additional of material in that document and therefore, reliance could not have been placed by the Courts below on that document while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 3] I do not find any substance in this submission. The Courts below have considered the fact that the application at exhibit 97 showed that the Gat no.55 was allotted to the share of Baban and Gat no.107 was allotted to the share of Ramchandra. From the plaintiff’s side, their father Baban had executed sale deed of northern 3 SA-67-11.odt half portion from Gat no.55 to one Baban Vithoba Pawar. The said sale deed was produced at exhibit 99. Pursuant to that sale deed, mutation entry was effected and said entry was produced at exhibit 101. As far as the defendants’ side is concerned, in the year 1989 defendant nos.1 to 4 sold 2 H land to defendant no.5 and 2 R land to defendant no.6 from Gat no.107. The Courts below, therefore, came to the conclusion that the partition was effected between Baban and Ramchandra in the year 1964 and the same was acted upon. It is in these circumstances the Courts below have dismissed the suit for partition and perpetual injunction. The courts below have dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, no orders are necessary on the Civil Application No.158 of 2011. The same stands disposed of. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]