82sa140.04.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 140 of 2004 (Vasant s/o. Bajirao Hinge .vs. Narayan s/o. Bajirao Hinge and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : 08/02/2010. Heard Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the appellant. This appeal is preferred by the Original defendant no.1 challenging the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. Regular Civil Suit No.334 of 1996 for partition and separate possession filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2/Original Plaintiffs has been decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and order dt. 19.7.1999 holding that the plaintiff no.1 is entitled to have 5/16th share in the suit property and plaintiff no.2 is entitled to have 1/16th share in the suit property. The suit property as shown in plaint is the Survey Nos. 35 and 216 from Neri and S.No.132 and 121 from Walhapur. The Appellate Court has dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.171 of 1999. Hence, Original defendant no.1 has preferred this appeal. Mrs. Joshi, Adv. appearing for the appellant has urged that the following substantial question of law arises out of the judgment passed by the Courts below : 82sa140.04.odt 2 . “ Whether the lower Court committed error of law in granting relief to the plaintiff in respect of land other than suit land, in holding that land as his individual's, without any claim as regards to and without any Counter-claim by the defendants, resulting depriving the defendants to agitate their right in that land by due procedure of law “ Apart from the above, the learned Counsel urges that the pleadings in the plaint are also vague and hence, the Courts below have erred in passing the decree and the plaint, therefore, should have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself. So far as the substantial question of law as re-produced above is concerned, I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the same nowhere refers to the property other than the suit property. Mrs. Joshi, Adv. appearing for the appellants has urged that the decree includes Survey Nos. 91-A, 91-B and 87. However, same does not find place in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. Hence, obviously, there is no decree passed by the Courts below in respect of Survey No.91-A, 91-B and 87 as urged by the learned Counsel. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the substantial question of law, as urged by the learned Counsel, arises in the present matter. So far as the question of vague pleadings is concerned, the parties have gone on evidence and have understood the pleadings and hence, no substantial question of law arises out of the same. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal. The 82sa140.04.odt 3 . appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE jais