1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 171 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1946 OF 2007 Balbhim S/o Pralhad Adsul & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Pralhad S/o Pandurang Adsul .. RESPONDENT ... Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for appellant Shri M.D. Gitte, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: The appellants are the original defendants. The respondent / Ori. Plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit property. The Courts below have decreed the suit, against the same the appellant / Ori. Defendants are before this Court. 2 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is ample evidence on record to show that the plaintiff, who is father of defendant No. 1, had relinquished the property in favour of defendant Nos. 3 & 4. In fact, he had partitioned the property. According to him, the Courts below have committed patent illegality in considering the revenue record in this regard. 3. It is not disputed that the partition between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff had already taken place long back. The relinquishment has to be by way of registered instrument. The theory of partition, as contended by the defendants, also cannot be taken into consideration, because the partition can only be amongst the share holders. Once the partition had already taken place between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, then the property allotted to the plaintiff became his separate property. In such circumstances, there cannot be a partition of the suit property between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 & 4. Even if the plaintiff alloted that property to defendant Nos. 3 & 4, 3 same would tantamount to gift, which can only be effected by way of registered instrument. 4. As there cannot be any partition of the suit property, the defendants cannot claim any right on the basis of the mutation entries. Both the Courts below concurrently held on appreciation of evidence that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in question. No perversity is found in appreciation of evidence. The Second Appeal being sans merit and no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal, as such, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application No. 1946 of 2007 does not survive, and the same is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 171.07SA