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.443 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.443 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.443 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.448 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.448 OF 2004 Shri Anandrao Bhiku Shinde & Ors. ...Appellants (In both the appeals) Versus. Dnyaneshwar Anandrao Kand ...Respondent (In both the appeals) Shri Rajiv Patil for the Appellants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th MARCH, 2008. : 10th MARCH, 2008. : 10th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants. His first submission is that all the issues which were framed in the suit filed by the appellants have not been answered by the trial Court. His second submission is that the finding on the issue of legal necessity by the Appellate Court is perverse in as much as the appellants could not have led any documentary evidence to show that the deceased father was addicted to vices. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. Even assuming that submissions made by the advocate for the appellants are correct, the purchaser from the father of the appellants will get undivided share of the deceased father. The Appellate Court has held that the deceased father had 1/4th share in the suit property. : 2 : 2 : 2 : The trial Court has passed a decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the respondent original plaintiff in the suit for partition. It is thus obvious that the courts below have not accepted the case of the respondent that he was placed in possession of 1/4th share in the suit property and that is the reason why there is a decree for partition and separate possession passed in favour of the respondent. 3. Once there is a decree for partition in favour of the respondent purchaser which relates only to the undivided share held by the deceased father of the appellants it was obviously not necessary to grant decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the appellants in their suit as the decree for partition proceeds on assumption that the respondent-purchaser was not placed in possession of the undivided share of the father. No substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeals are dismissed. 4. Civil Application Nos.413 of 2004 and 415 of 2004 do not survive and the same are rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.