IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2010 SHRI. GURUDAS TUKARAM KORGAONKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI ANANT TUKARAM KORGAONKAR (DEC.) THROUGH LR'S AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 21st June, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Panaji, Goa in Regular Civil Appeal No.105/2008 by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.21/1993/C passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, has been dismissed. 3. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit filed against the respondents/ defendants seeking partition in respect of the property bearing Chalta No.4 and 5 of P.T. Sheet No.76 of Mapusa city. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed 2/3rd share in the property and according to the plaintiff, the defendants had 1/3rd share. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial Court by judgment and decree 30th June, 2008 dismissed the suit holding that the defendants were the exclusive owners of the suit property. 4. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff/ appellant, has been dismissed. By the impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court has held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have any title to the suit property and the title vests in the Communidade of Mapusa. However, the lower appellate Court has given a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. 5. Having heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3, I find that no case has been made out for admission of the appeal since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. However, Mr. Lotlikar is right in contending that the finding given by the lower appellate Court that the defendants are in possession of the suit property would not operate as res judicata since the suit filed was a suit for partition and as such, it was necessary for the appellate Court to give finding on the decision. Mr. Lotlikar has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) Through LRs and others Vs. Badribai w/o Jagannath and another; (2003)2 SCC 464. 6. Therefore, although the appeal is liable to be dismissed, it is observed that the finding given by the lower appellate Court in so far as the possession of the defendants is concerned, would not operate as res judicata. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is summarily rejected subject to the observations made above. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA