( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 330 OF 1999 Ramrao s/o. Sakharam Dhage & anr. .. Appellants Versus Tikaram s/o. Parbata Dhage & ors. .. Respondents Shri M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. Miss M.B. Vaishnav h/f. Shri P.V. Mandlik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri M.V. Deshpande for the appellants and Miss. M.B. Vaishnav h/f. Sr. Adv. Shri P.V. Mandlik for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Present plaintiffs/appellants have filed suit for partition and separate possession. The suit was dismissed on the ground that properties were already partitioned and there cannot be re-partition. The First Appellate Court also took the same view. In order to prove that there was previous partition between ( 2 ) the parties particularly between Sakharam and defendant No.1 Tikaram, who were original owners, my attention was drawn to paras 12 and 14 of the Appellate Court’s judgment. The Appellate Court considered that P.W.4 has admitted in his cross-examination that he purchased certain properties from defendant No.1 Tikaram and Sakharam. Defendant No.1 accepted consideration and Sakharam executed sale-deed. He stated that though he had purchased the properties both from Sakharam and defendant No.1, he has not taken signature of defendant No.1 on the sale-deeds. Then, he said that he obtained separate sale-deed from defendant No.1. It is argued that if properties were joint, there was no necessity of separate sale-deeds, some from Sakharam and some from defendant No.1. Apart from it, in para 13 entries of village holding register were discussed by the Court and it clearly shows that holding in the name of Sakharam and holding in the name of defendant No.2 were separate. In para 14 it is observed that , Pahani Patrak and Pahani Khasra Patrak are there on record for the year 1954-55 to 1959-60. Those documents show that defendant No.1 had received some property under gift from Anjanabai. There is no evidence to show that those lands were treated as ancestral property by defendant No.1 & Sakharam. So, those lands cannot be considered as joint family property. 2. So, the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not merely based ( 3 ) on oral evidence, but are supported by documentary evidence. After considering the documents on record, in my opinion, there is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Previous partition is a question of fact, which was decided against the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa330.99