1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2010 Chandrakant Maruti Padgude Jagtap ... Appellant v/s Rakesh Tukaram Jagtap & anr. ... Respondents Mr.M.S.Karnik for the appellant. Mr.J.Shekhar i/by J.Shekhar & Co. for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court which confirms the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. The suit was filed by the respondents for specific performance of the agreement between himself and defendant No.1 i.e. the appellant herein. This agreement was in respect of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 35 Ares in Gat No.250. The agreement specifically states that it is in 2 respect of the share of the appellant in the joint family property. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the suit has been filed by joining not only the appellant but also his brother and mother as party defendants. According to the learned advocate, the suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as defendant Nos.2 and 3 had not executed the agreement of which specific performance was sought. 4. On consideration of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court, in my view, no substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant. The appellant has not raised the issue of mis-joinder of parties when he preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The decree has been passed apparently, only against defendant No.1 i.e. the appellant herein. 5. In any event, the learned advocate for the respondents states that the respondents claim for specific performance of the contract is confined only to the share of the appellant in the joint family property as mentioned in the agreement dated 12.1.2001. 6. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. 3 4