-1- 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 FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1574 OF APPEAL NO.1574 OF APPEAL NO.1574 OF 2005 2005 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. Mr.R.S.Kate for the Appellant Mr.S.N.Gawade,A.G.P. for R.Nos.2 to 4 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: MARCH 14, 2006. MARCH 14, 2006. MARCH 14, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Kate for the Appellant. The Appeal is by the original Defendant No.4. Shri Kate submitted that the Appellate court could not have passed a decree on the basis of the report of the Court Commissioner in absence of any evidence to show that the properties were divided by metes and bounds in a particular manner. He therefore submitted that interference is called for with the Judgment of the Appellate Court. 2. The Appellate Court has noted that there was no dispute between the contesting parties that the partition was in fact effected around the year 1967. -2- The Appellate Court relied upon the admission of the Appellant to the effect that the sketch annexed to the plaint was correct. There was also an admission on the part of the Appellant as regards the sketch prepared by the Court Commissioner. On the basis of the material on record the finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate court. 3. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.