1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.716 OF 2008 Shri.Bannappa Gangappa Mahadwar .. Appellant. -versus Smt. Shila Parmeshwar Mahadwar and ors . Respondents Shri. P.D. Dalvi, for the appellant. Ms Archana Kologi, i/b T.S.Ingale for respondent Nos l to 6. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J DATED: 21st July, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr P.D.Dalvi, learned counsel for the appellant-original plaintiff and Ms Archana Kologi, learned counsel for the respondents-original defendants. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration and possession of the suit property as more particularly described in paragraph No.l of the plaint. 2 2. By judgment and decree dated 3lst March,2005, the Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the property bearing Gat No.145, bearing NA Plot No.8, open space bearing Ward No.2l, and house property bearing No.2l9l[164 old H.No.l474/1, is the self acquired property of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge has declared partition deed dated 2lst September, l998 as void and further directed the defendants to give vacant possession of suit property l(b) to the plaintiff within three months from the date of passing of decree. 3. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ichalkarani. After considering the material on record, learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the partition deed dated 25th September, l998 is registered document and is duly proved. In the partition deed the plaintiff has clearly admitted that the suit property was purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendants. It is relevant to note here that the plaintiff did not enter the witness box to challenge the registered 3 deed of partition dated 25th September, l998. The learned District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the rights of the parties are governed by the partition deed. 4. In view of this learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)