1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 990 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 09.04.2010 Heard Mr. Arun Dalal, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.M. Ghatge, Advocate h/f Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate present for respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff, whose suit bearing R.C.S. No.53/2004 for injunction simplicitor, has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge, J.D. Purna on 2 13-04-2007, which judgment and decree further confirmed by the District Judge-1, Parbhani in R.C.A. No.72/2007 decided on 29-09-2009. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : 3. According to the appellant- plaintiff, he purchased 55R out of Gat No. 123 situated at Satephal, Taluka Purna on 05-05-2004 by registered sale deed from Savitribai and Shobhabai who were respectively widow and daughter of one Hari Rohiji. On other hand, the defendants have come with a case that they have purchased the property from Harnabai and Shashikalabai who were respectively widow and daughter of Rohiji father of Hari. 4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession over the suit property. The 3 appellate Court has also held that exclusive possession is not proved. Admittedly, R.C.S. No. 86/1980 was filed by Harnabai and Shashikalabai against Savitri and Shobhabai for partition and admittedly, the said suit is pending after remand by the District Court. In other words, rights of vendors of the parties before this Court are to decided in R.C.S. No. 86/1980. In view of the concurrent findings of the fact, second appeal against the suit for injunction simplicitor cannot be admitted. There is no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. Parties will be bound by the decision in R.C.S. No.86/1980 where the rights of the parties will be decided. Parties to the present appeal are at liberty to move the concerned Court for substituting them as party in 4 said suit. 5. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and hence is disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/sa57.10