1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.287 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 23.11.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.D.K.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was erroneous on the part of the Courts below to hold that in the year 1911 when the alleged partition took place, the father of the plaintiff was not minor. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that even as per the death extract Exh.185, the age of the father of the plaintiff in 1911 would be 14 years and as per the mortgage deed Exh.184 the age of the plaintiff's father in 1911 would be 16 years. Taking into consideration either of the document, it is clear that in 1911 the father of the plaintiff was minor and if any such partition has taken place, the same would be nonest, void abinitio. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts have perversely appreciated the said document and have arrived at a wrong conclusion. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below. The Courts on evaluating the oral evidence, so also the relevant entries taken in the record have come to the conclusion that the partition had already taken place in the year 1911. Even if Exhs.184 and 185 are considered, they do not give a specific date of birth of the father of plaintiff. It was admitted that father of the plaintiff was in service but no such record was produced. It was for the plaintiff to prove the exact age of his father in the year 1911. The plaintiff has failed to do so. Moreover, the plaintiff had also averred that in the year 1943 he had sought partition and the defendant refused. After a long slumber, the suit was filed in the year 1981. Even as per Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit was filed beyond limitation from the date when the plaintiff was ousted. So even on that count, the plaintiff would not be entitled for any relief. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.23.11.2010. asp/office/sa287.10