1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2008 Bajirao Ramchandra Mahalungkar........Appellant versus Dagadu Ramchandra Mahalungkar & ors....... Respondents. Mr. V.B. Tapkir for the Appellant CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 06th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Tapkir learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. The respondent no.1 filed suit for partition and separate possession. Suit was decreed by the trial court by granting ½ share each to the respondent no.1 and present appellant. This decree is confirmed by the lower appellate court by the impugned judgment and order. 2. Mr. Topkir the learned counsel submitted that original area of Gat no. 353 was only 18 ares. However, it was increased to one hector and 20 ares in implementation of the consolidation 2 scheme. He further submits that the property of one Sona and Khandu is joined in the suit property Gat no.353 and the respondent no.1 gave compensation of Rs. 372/- to said Sona and Khandu and therefore the resondent no.1/plaintiff is at the most entitlted to 8.5 ares in Gat no.353. In my view since the consolidation scheme was implemented when the appellant and respondent no.1 were members of joint family it is to be presumed that the amount of compensation was paid on behalf of the joint family, In that view of the matter , I do not find any merit in this submission. 4. Mr.Topkir furrher submitted that the appellant filed an application to ament the written statement before lower appellate court, thereby contending that Gat no. 618 though joint family property, was not added in plaint. This amendment application was allowed, and therefore respondent no.1's suit ought to have been dismissed for non joinder of necessary properties. The appellant however, did not seek any permission to lead evidence in this regard. In the absence of any evidence on record, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Gat no. 618 in the joint family property cannot be accepted. Both the courts below concurrently held that respondent no.1 is entitled for partition and accordingly ½ share is granted. I do not find any error in 3 the impugned judgment and order. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this case. Appeal is thus dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and it is also dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)