1 S.A.NO 830/2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2008 1. Govindrao S/o Bhaurao Patil, Age 67 years,occup.Agril, R/o Badur,Ta Nilanga. District Latur. ... Appellant. (Ori.Defendant no.1) V E R S U S 1 Sheshrao S/o Bhaurao Patil, Age 60 years, occup. Agril, R/o badur, ta. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 2. Sau Vimal W/o Vishnudas Korale, Age 57 years, Occup. Household,R/o Kawatha Ta. Omerga, Dist. Osmanbad. 3. Chitrabai W/o Laxman Dhumal, Age 53 years, Occup. Agril, R/o Badur, Ta. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 4. Mangalbai W/o Vilas Karale, Age 52 years, occup. Household, R/o Morkhandi, Ta. Basakalyan Dist.Bidar. 5. Tejabai W/o Shamrao Sonwane, Age 51 years, occup. Household, R/o Kawatha, Ta. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 6. Subhash S/o Govind Reedy- Made, Age 51 years Occup. Agril., R/o Badur, Ta. Nilanga,Dist.Latur. 2 7. Dayanand S/o Kalyanappa Konshette, Age 51 years, occup. Agril., R/o Badur, Ta. Nilanga Dist. Latur. 8. Manmath S/o Kalappaa Konshette,Age 50 years Occup. Agri., R/o Badur, Ta. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Respondents. (Ori.Defendant) ------------------------------------------ Mr.A.G.Dalal Advocate holding for Advocate Mr.V.D. Salanke,Advocate for appellants. Mr. R.B.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondentnos.1 to5. Mr.S.M.Vibhute advocate for respondent no.7. ------------------------------------------ CORAM : A.V. Nirgude, J DATE : 27 th August,2009. PER COURT : 1. The second appeal is filed against two concurrent judgments. The appellant and respondent nos. 1 to 5 are children of one Bhaurao. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of one piece of land namely Gut No. 72 of village Badur, Ta. Nilanga, District Latur. The appellant contested the suit saying that during their father’s life time, father had effected the partition of joint family properties and suit piece of land came to his share. He further pointed out that, there was another piece of land bearing Gut No. 69 with joint family and in the partition the same went to the share of respondent no.1. He also pointed out that 3 S.A.NO 830/2008. having received the said property in partition, respondent no.1 sold it to third party. However, on the facts, both the Courts below rejected the appellant’s case. It was pointed out by the Courts below that, when other piece of land bearing Gut No. 69 was sold to third party, the land was still a joint family property. It is thus, clear that the appellant failed to prove his case of partition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant rightly pointed out that the Courts below did not specifically frame the issue in respect of other piece of land Gut No.69 which was allegedly sold by the respondent no.1 alone. But, still the parties, it appears led sufficient and proper evidence on this controversy and as said above the Courts below gave their findings on the questions of fact. So, not framing of issue on this subject did not cause any prejudice to any of the party. Since, the issues between the parties were mostly factual and since they are settled through the judgments of the Courts below, I am not inclined to admit the appeal as there is no substantial question of law. The appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Second appeal Civil Application No. 1944/2008 also stands dismissed. ( A.V.Nirgude, J) MTK/sa.830.2009