1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.562 OF 2009. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7984 OF 2009 Shaikh Bashir S/o Shaikh Majid ... Appellant. Versus Manbee W/o Shaikh Majid Patel and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.M.Kagne, advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Choudhari, advocate for the REspondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The suit filed by the present appellant was decreed and the decree is maintained by the first appellate Court. The appellant is aggrieved only because the first appellate Court directed 2 that the share of the appellant (plaintiff) may be segregated by excluding the specific portion sold by the defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 18.4.2000. 3. By consent, the Second Appeal is heard finally only as regards the legality of the said explanation, whereby the first appellate Court gave specific direction to exclude the alienated portion while carving out the share of the appellant (plaintiff). 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment, it is manifestly clear that the first appellate Court committed patent error while directing the segregation of the alienated portion and to exclude the same while effecting the partition. This is not the legal and proper direction which the first appellate Court could have given. The execution of partition decree is within exclusive domain of the Collector U/s 54 of the C.P.C. It is the discretion of the Collector to divide the agricultural land while 3 effecting the partition, having regard to equitable principles and to allot shares to the parties. The Civil Court can not pre-empt and effect the partition at the time of deciding the suit itself. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the following sentence appearing in the final order of the first appellate Court with following explanation : "Specific portion of share of plaintiff be given excluding the specific portion sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 under registered sale deed dated 18.4.2000" is deleted and stands substituted by the following sentence : "The Collector may, if it is found equitable and reasonable, consider allocation of the land sold by the 4 defendant No.1 to the defendant No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 18.4.2000 if it is convenient to effect partition without difficulty . The the actual division of the suit land will be within his (Collector's) exclusive discretion." 6. Considering the above clarification, the Second Appeal is disposed of. No costs. C.A. disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa56209