Short Note : The argument of Shri V.S. Pandit, learned counsel for the appellants, in support of this appeal is that the shares have not been properly declared by the Court below and that the provision for marriage expenses of the unmarried daughters defendants 5, 6 and 7 should have been made from the whole property and not left to be borne by their father defendant No.1 out of his own share. These are the only two points for consideration in this appeal. Held : With regard to the provision for marriage expenses of the unmarried daughters of Khuman Prasad (defendant No.1), the Court below has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mukundrao v. Govindrao, 26 MPLC 318, for taking the view that no separate provision is required to be made on this account because the father Khuman Prasad (defendant No.1) who has been allocated a share in the partition is to meet this expense from out of his share in the properties. Shri Pandit is unable to show as to how this conclusion of the Court below based on the aforesaid Division Bench decision is erroneous. He is also unable to dispute that this is the view taken by the Division Bench in that case. There is thus no merit even in this other point urged in support of the appeal. 26 MPLC 318 relied on. Appeal dismissed.