1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.375 OF 2009 MULCHAND @ BUNDICHAND MAHADEO MESHRAM VERSUS KHEMCHAND AND OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.N. Mohta, advocate for appellant Shri D.C. Naukarkar, advocate for respondent no.1 Mrs. Palsodkar, advocate for respondent no.13 to 16. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent no.1 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. The plaintiff and the defendants are all brothers and sisters and are the sons and daughters of one Mahadeo who expired on 4.9.1977. The defendant no.1/ appellant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that there was a written partition between the parties and on 25.5.1985 and the property owned by Mahadeo was divided between the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 and the mother of the parties by name Baijabai. The defendant no.1 sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial and the first appellate court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the defendant no.1 had been unsuccessful in proving that there was a partition of the properties between the parties to the suit and Baijabai on 25.5.1985. Both the courts held that the written document of partition was neither 2 proved by defendant no.1 nor the same was registered, though it was compulsorily registrable under the provisions of the Registration Act. Since the courts held that the defendants had failed to prove the partition between the parties, the claim of the plaintiff was decreed. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The judgment reported in 2010 (2) SCC 77 and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that case a deed of family settlement was executed between the parties and was acted upon. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP