1 S.A.NO.476.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2006 Santu Bhima Shinde ... Appellant V E R S U S Bhaskar S/o Rangnath Chouhdari and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5440 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2006 Santu Bhima Shinde ... Applicant V E R S U S Bhaskar S/o Rangnath Chouhdari and others ... Respondents ... Mr.C.V.Korhalkar, Advocate for Appellant-applicant Mr.R.R.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard on admission. 2] The Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The respondents are members of one family. The respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No. 73 of 1989, against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for partition of joint 2 S.A.NO.476.06 family property. The appellant was also made party, because he was occupying the some land belonging to the joint family. The appellant could succeed in showing that he was occupying the certain portion of the suit land as tenant, but the appellant’s plea that he occupied remaining portion of the suit land also as tenant has been rejected by the Courts below. . In earlier suit, a “reference” to the Tenancy Court was already made to find out as to whether the appellant could prove his tenancy in respect of the entire suit land and on 31st May, 2003, the Tenancy Court recorded finding that the appellant was tenant only in respect of half portion on north side of the suit land. The Tenancy Court rejected his claim of tenancy in respect of the remaining southern half portion of the suit land. The learned Judges of the Courts below having regard to this finding directed the appellant to handover the southern half portion of the suit land to the respondents. It was held that the suit land would be subject to the partition. This finding is mainly challenged in this Second Appeal. Having regard to the Judgments of the Courts below, I find no error on the part of Courts below. 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to inform this Court that the litigation in respect of “reference” made to the 3 S.A.NO.476.06 Tenancy Court is still pending and is yet to be decided. So, the hearing of this appeal be stayed and effect of the impugned Judgment and decree should also be stayed to the extent of southern half portion of the suit land. I am afraid, this can not be done. In November, 2005 the learned District Judge made his observation about the finality of the findings recorded by the Tenancy Court in respect of the Southern half portion of the suit land. The appellant made no grievance about it. In the Appeal Memo a fleeting reference is made of the correctness of such observation. At this belated stage, after ten years, I am unable to give importance to oral submissions made across the bar in respect of pendency of certain tenancy proceeding. Therefore, the appeal should fail. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if in future appellant succeeds in proving his tenancy in respect of southern half portion of the suit land, he shall be entitled to restitution to that extent. . Consequently, the Civil Application NO. 5440 OF 2006 for stay stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok