1 sa1322-04.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1322 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1804 OF 2004 Laxman Vithu Patil ..Appellant Vs Pandurang Vishnu Patil and ors. ..Respondents ­­ Ms.A.R.S.Baxi, for applicant Mr.R.P.Walvekar i/b.Mr.D.S.Sawant, for respondent nos.3A, 3B and 4 to 8. Mr.T.S.Ingale, for respondent nos.10A to10E. ­­ CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH, 2011 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The original plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 7 th July, 2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Islampur in Civil Appeal No.143 of 1999 as also the judgment and decree dated 20 th January, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Shirala in Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 1991. By these judgments, the Courts below dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. 3] Bahiru Patil died leaving behind four sons namely Gopala, Vithu, Arjuna and Rama. The appellant Laxman was taken in adoption by 2 sa1322-04.sxw Balkabai w/o.Vithu and to that effect, adoption deed was executed on 22 nd August, 1932. Laxman instituted present suit in the year 1981 claiming partition of his 1/4 th share. The defendants resisted suit and set up the plea of previous partition. On the basis of material on record including the case made out in paragraph nos.3 and 5 of the plaint, the Courts below recorded findings of fact that the partition was effected among the sons of Bhairu Patil and even subsequently, the grandsons of Bhairu are residing separately and independently. 4] I do not find that the courts below have ignored the relevant material on record. It also cannot be said that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are perverse. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, (1981)2 SCC 414, at the most, it can be said that the findings of facts of the Courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable. But, that itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises. 5] Hence, Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs. Civil Application No.1804 of 2004 does not survive and the same stands disposed of with no order as to the costs. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]