1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 466 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2005 Shankar Bhau Nalawade & ors........Appellants versus Nathuram Joti Nalawade & ors......... Respondents. Mr. R.S. Ghadge for the Appellants Mr. Machhindra Patil for the Respondent nos. 1B & 1C & 4 to 6. CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 29th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Ghadge the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Machhindra Patil for respondent nos. 1B and 1C. The appellants are the original defendants 1 to 3. The respondent no.1- the original Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, and the first appeal came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr. Ghadge the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is restricting the present Second Appeal so far as Gat No. 2284 is concerned. He submits that the respondent no.1/plaintiff is not entitled to partition of this Gat No. 2284 in as 2 much as his father Bhau was a tenant who was subsequently given 32 M certificate under Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. This submission is misconceived. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court recorded concurrent finding on the basis of evidence on record that the grand-father of the present appellant and father of present respondent no.1 was tenant in the gat no. 2284. It was further held that in view of the provisions of section 40 of B.T. & A.L.T. Act this tenancy is heritable and consequently the respondent no.1-Plaintiff is granted ½ share. I do not find any error in the aforesaid finding. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The same is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. 2. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application no.800/05 do not survive and the same is also dismissed. ( R.V. MORE, J.)