1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2009. Nanaji Dewaji Zod Vs. Namdeo D. Zod (Dead) Uttam N. Zod ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri O. W. Gupta Adv for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. Heard. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff. Plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. He alleged that the property in suit was a joint family property and was liable to be partitioned. Suit was opposed by the defendant/respondent. It was their contention that property was already partitioned and there was therefore no question of repartition of the suit 2 property. Learned Judge of the trial Court found that the suit property was not the joint family property and it was already partitioned and plaintiff had received his share. Appellate Court also concurred with the findings. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and in fact the suit property was not partitioned. The submission has no force. After having gone through the two concurrent findings it is clear that there was a partition and plaintiff was given his share. In para 15 the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff had received 2.39 acres of land out of Sur. No. 354 and half portion in Sur. No. 348 also. He has also quoted the admission of the plaintiff with regard to the house property having been partitioned 26 years ago. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show me that this finding recorded by the First Appellate Court which is based on the admission itself is in any way 3 perverse. Since this finding cannot be said to be perverse I see no reason to admit the appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk