* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1629 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2008 Pandurang Jaysingh Suryawanshi .............Appellant V/S. Janabai Rajaram & Ors. ................Respondents ---------- Mr.Pratap Patil, adv.for appellant. Mr.AnilKumar Patil, adv.for respondents. CORAM :- SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred to challenge the correctness and legality of the order dated 24th March, 2008 passed by the District Court, Islampur, Kolhapur confirming the decree of partition filed by the trial court. It however modified the shares of original plaintiff and original defendant no.8 as 3/12 and 1/12 respectively in the suit properties. * 2 * 3. Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is original defendant no.10 does not challenge the shares allotted by the court. He however submits that since he has purchased the share of original defendant no.4 and original defendant no.3 vide sale-deed dated 28th March, 1994 and 28th August, 1995 he is entitled to get the entire share of these two defendants at the time of division of the property. The sale-deed executed by original defendant no.4 is in respect of 4 anna share in Gat No.381 and 392 whereas the sale-deed executed by defendant no.3 is in respect of 2 anna share therein. These two defendants have been alloted much lesser share i.e. 2/27 each. Since what has been sold by these two defendants to the appellant is way beyond their share in the property, the appeal court has clarified that the sale-deed executed by these two defendants are binding on the respective shares only and not on the shares of other. It further directed that possession of the share of other defendants be given to them on their paying the requisite court-fees. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that in view of the direction that possesion be given of their shares, the executing court may not hand over to him, possession of the shares of original defendants no.3 and 4. 4. There is no scope for such apprehension in view of the specific clarification given in the operative order that the sale deeds executed by different defendants are binding on their respective shares. Hence, the * 3 * Second Appeal is dismissed. 5. With the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 1629 of 2008 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]