1 S.A. No.736.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.736 OF 2010 Navnath S/o Sampat Labade & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Suryabhan S/o Shivram Labade & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the appellants ... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is Plaintiffs Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs have assailed the 2 S.A. No.736.2010 said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Latange, learned Counsel for the appellants submit that in fact in the year 1936 no partition was effected, the same was only a family settlement. The Courts below merely on the basis of revenue records have come to the conclusion about the partition, when in fact it was a family arrangement. He further submitted that Parvati did not have right to dispose of the property, as the father of the appellant also had share in the property. According to learned Counsel the Courts below have not properly evaluated the evidence and have come to erroneous conclusion. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. Both Courts on appreciation of oral, so also documentary evidence have come to the conclusion that in the year 1936 partition has taken place amongst the four sons of Narayan. It is not in dispute that Narayan is the common ancestor, he 3 S.A. No.736.2010 was original owner of the suit property, who had left behind four sons. The partition had taken place in the year 1936, the same was acted upon is also substantiated by the fact that Paravati executed registered sale-deed in favour of Laxmibai on 17-10-1938, in respect of the property which was given to him in partition. Even mutation entry No.1055 is effected pursuant to the said partition. All these fact goes to show that the partition had taken place. There is nothing on record to show that Parvati had sold the property after the birth of Sampat i.e. the father of the appellant. On all these counts the Courts have come to a probable conclusion. 4. Even assuming the case as argued by Shri Latange, the learned Counsel that in the year 1936 there was only family arrangement and not a partition, still a longstanding family arrangement which is acted upon would amount to a partition, as has been held by the Supreme Court in a case of “Sarwan Singh Lamba and others V/s. Union of India and others, reported in AIR, 1995, SC 1729”. 4 S.A. No.736.2010 5. In the light of above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*