ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2006 APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2006 APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.D.B.Lonkar for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the facts arrived by the decision of the courts below with regard to the issue about the oral partition effected in the year 1973--1974. The trial Court, after considering the evidence laid by the parties, has partly decreed the suit. The Appellant- plaintiff failed to prove, even though laid evidence to support his basic case of oral partition in the year 1973-74. ( 2 ) Therefore, granted the partition. 2. The first Appellate Court after considering the contentions of the parties dismissed the Appeal and contended that the reasoned order passed by the Trial Court is correct. 3.After considering the findings so arrived at by the Courts below, and the submission so laid down by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I am also of the view that the finding so arrived at is within the frame work of law and record. There is no perversity. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]