1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6358 OF 1998 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.635 OF 2005 Antu Tatya Kamble & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Sahebrao Bapu Kamble (Since deceased by his LR's) Padmaraj Sahebrao Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr.R.A.Thorat for Respondent Nos.1A and 3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 29TH, 2008. P.C. This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 24th March, 1998 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 364 of 1990. 2 2. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 1988 filed by the Respondents herein claiming 5/6th share in the suit property. The said suit came to be decreed and it was held that the Respondent/Plaintiff were entitled to the said 5/6th share. The issue of limitation, as well as the issue of estoppal has been dealt with by the Trial Court and has been decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. 3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 11th July, 1990 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, the Appellant has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.364 of 1990. The said Appeal came to be dismissed and thereby decree passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. Though various contentions have been raised in the Trial Court, it appears that the contentions as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the 3 Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was not pressed by the Appellants and only the case of adverse possession was contended. In the said circumstances, the Appellate Court examined said case of the Appellants and negatived the said case of adverse possession made out by the Appellants. The Lower Appellate Court held that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are the joint owners of the suit property and merely because the name of the Plaintiffs was not recorded in respect of the said suit land after the same came to be redeemed on account of Bombay Agriculture Debt Relief Act, 1947, the right to claim the share in the suit land cannot be lost. 4. In so far as the Appellants contentions as regards the recording in paragraph 7 of the Judgment of Lower Appellate Court, wherein it has been recorded that the contentions as regards the non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppal, 4 abandonment of right or limitation the said contentions have been dealt with in the order passed in the Civil Application No.1286 of 2008 which was filed by the Appellants in the above Second Appeal which was also been disposed of. In my view, it is not necessary to repeat the said reasons once again. 5. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings as regards the Respondents entitlement to 5/6th share in the suit property. The Second Appeal, in my view, does not raise any substantial question of law and is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.6358 of 1998 for stay does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J.] 5