1 S.A. No. 589.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.589 OF 2004 Rukhminibai Dattatraya Murtadkar died L.Rs & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. R.C. Biyani, Advocate for the appellant Smt. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for respondent /State Shri N.C. Garud, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is Plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and for possession. Both the Courts dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Biyani, the learned Counsel for 2 S.A. No. 589.04 the appellant submits that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. As such, his title needs to be protected. After the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, passed the Judgment, in favour of his predecessor in title he purchased the property, as such it cannot be said that he is purchaser pendente-lite. Thereafter, in the year 1984 the High Court reversed the said Judgment of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 3. Shri Garud, learned Counsel for the defendants submits that when the High Court has already held tenancy rights of the defendant, then Janabai did not have any title to pass it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is purchaser pendente-lite, as such cannot protect his possession. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 5. The plaintiff is a purchaser, pendente- 3 S.A. No. 589.04 lite from Janabai. The High Court in proceedings under the Tenancy Act has held that the defendants and its predecessor are a tenant. As such, Janabai cannot get any title right or the authority to deal with the said property. The plaintiff having purchased the property from Janabai, interalia cannot get any right. 6. In that view of the matter, no error has been committed by the Courts below,the Second Appeal is dismissed being devoid of substantial question of law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM*758.10SA/61210.