1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2008 Rajendra Narayan Dabre Vs. Vasant Laxman Dabre & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th JULY, 2009. Heard. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant No.1. Respondent no.1 had instituted a suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that in an oral partition between him and the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. deceased defendant No.2 he got the suit property. It is also the respondent No.1’s case that he had initially inducted Rajendra the present appellant as a licencee in the premises. The present appellant Rajendra vacated the house but then thereafter the deceased Narayan defendant No.2 2 occupied the said premises. It is his contention that in the partition the entire suit house had fallen to respondent Nos. 1’s share. The suit was contested by defendants i. e. present appellant and Narayan’s heir. Trial Court found that there was a partition between Vasant and Narayan in the year 1960 and even thereafter Narayan had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff Vasant i. e. respondent No.1. In view of this finding the trial Court decreed the suit. Appellate Court has also observed the same and has concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court. Shri Mardikar learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no proper appreciation of the evidence and that is the only substantial question of law which he wants to urge. He submits that trial Court had not considered the effect of execution of the relinquishment deed. Even if there was an oral partition in the year 1960, he submits that there could not be any relinquishment deed once there was a partition. The argument has no force. The Courts below have came to the conclusion and found that there was a partition between two brothers Vasant and Narayan in the year 1960. Trial Court has even considered the relinquishment deed. It is a registered deed. The said deed clearly goes to show that whatever right Narayan has had he has relinquished in favour of respondent 3 No.1 and these are the two findings of fact. There is no substantial question of law involved. I do not find that there is any wrong appreciation of evidence or any kind of perversity in the judgment rendered by the Courts below. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4 5 6