(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2010 Raghuvir Janardhan Gupta, .. Appellant Died per L.Rs. : (Original defendant no.3 ) Kailash Raghuvir Gupta & others. versus Nathumal Jamnadas Gupta & .. Respondents others. (Nos.1 & 2 - Original plaintiffs & Nos.2,4,5,6 and 7 - Original defendants) ....................... Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for the appellants. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The decree for partition was questioned by the defendant before the first appellate court where the first (2) appellate court modified the same to the extent of mesne profit by order dated 5th May 2001, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/1997. The first appellate court did not disturb the decree for partition. The aggrieved defendant is in Second Appeal, feels that the question of limitation has wrongly been dealt with by both the courts and hence projects a substantial question of law. 2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants, I have gone through the pleadings to consciously see as to what is the defence raised and what are the documents to support the defendant's contention of break up of nucleus to the joint family. The pleadings illustrate, somewhere in 1968, the plaintiff out of anguish, removed himself from the property with a cart and some movables and started living separately and hence the defendant asserts, there was separation of the plaintiff which will exclude the plaintiff to stake claim to the immovable property. 3. There was evidence before the learned Judge which demonstrated, in the year 1984, plaintiff sought partition of immovable properties and after around 9 years thereof, filed Special Civil Suit No. 48/1993 on 2nd February 1993. This action of the plaintiff is certainly within the bracket of Article 110 of the Limitation Act. There is nothing on the part of the defendant / appellant to establish that there was exclusion of (3) rights to the plaintiff from the immovable property. 4. Taking survey of the evidence adduced, I do not see, any substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/64sa