IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.617 OF 2005. APPEAL NO.617 OF 2005. APPEAL NO.617 OF 2005. Khashaba Bapu Bodare & Anr. ...Appellants Versus. Bajrang Mahipati Bodare ...Respondent Shri Manoj Kadam i/by Shri Pratap Patil for the Appellants. Shri T.S.Ingale for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th February, 2008. : 11th February, 2008. : 11th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal is by the original defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The defence of the appellants was that there was already a prior partition effected. The said defence was accepted by the trial Court and suit was dismissed. The Appellate Court has interfered and has passed a decree for partition. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court. He pointed out that evidence on record clearly establishes that for a long time the parties have been enjoying separate and distinct portions of the suit property. Apart from the said fact, the parties are residing separately. He submitted that the entries made in the Village Panchayat Record and City Survey Record were never challenged by the plaintiff for last twenty : 2 : 2 : 2 : years. He submitted that the fact that the entries were never challenged is borne out from the cross-examination of the respondent. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error by discarding the case made out by the appellants of prior partition. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. What has been relied upon by the appellants is the alleged separate enjoyment of different portions of the suit property by the parties to the suit. Perusal of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellants shows that they have not set out in their evidence particulars of the partition allegedly effected 40 years back. What the Appellate Court has held is that entries in Revenue Records and City Survey Records no doubt show separate possession but the said entries have not been made on the basis of any partition effected between the parties. In absence of any evidence regarding actual partition by metes and bounds effected between the parties merely because separate possession of different parts of the suit property by the parties to the suit has been established is no ground to accept the case made out by the appellants of earlier partition. 4. The findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court in this behalf are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. : 3 : 3 : 3 : 5. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 6. Civil Application No.1089 of 2005 does not survive and the same is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.