1 Second Appeal No.665/2010 01.11.2011 Shri Sameer Athawale, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment & decree dated 20.10.2010 passed in Civil First Appeal No.16-A/09 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh affirmed the judgment & decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in respect of house in question on the ground that the suit house is in jointly owned by Khemchand and Gopilal and from very inception they were residing in the said house and during their life time an oral partition was effected between them by which the half of the suit house came in the share of the plaintiff. The respondent/ defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the suit house was exclusively owned by Khemchand and his name was recorded in the Municipality since 1978-79. After his death name of his son Jagannath was recorded and after the death of Jagannath name of his wife Shanti Bai was recorded. After the death of Shanti Bai her mother the defendant Sitabai is the exclusive owner of the suit house. It was also denied that oral partition was effected between them. The trial Court on the basis of the admission made by the plaintiff and his witnesses and on appreciating the material available on record, dismissed the suit by holding that no oral partition was affected between Khemchand and Gopilal. The learned appellate Court below after considering the judgment of the trial Court affirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 2 during pendency of the suit on 25.3.09 he filed an application for examination of plaintiff's witness Kalu, who was present at the time of oral partition. The said application was wrongly rejected by the trial Court on 30.3.09. This question has been considered by the lower appellate Court and the learned appellate Court below on the basis of the fact that there is no averment in the plaint that Kalu was present when the so called oral partition was effected between Khemchand and Gopilal nor plaintiff's witnesses who were examined before the trial Court on 14.3.09 and 25.3.09 have made such statement. In respect of title, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that defendant Sitabai isnot having any document to prove that house in question was purchased by her grandfather Khemchand and submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error in dismissing the suit. On considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and on appreciating the reasons assigned by the trial Court even on appreciation of the material on record and considering the fact that since 1978-79 the house in question was in the name of Khemchand and after his death the same was mutated in the name of his son and, thereafter, the house was mutated in the name of present defendant the said finding is finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*