1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.477 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o Baburao Holkar and others ... Appellants. Versus Shrirang S/o Mahadev Holkar and another ... Respondents. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.483 OF 2010. Ravindra S/o Baburao Holkar and others ... Appellants. Versus Shrirang S/o Mahadev Holkar and others ... Respondents. Mr.M.L.Dharashive, advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.P.More, advocate for the Respondent No.1. 2 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.10.2010. PER COURT 1. These are the Second Appeals filed by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed suit claiming declaration of the 3/10th share and injunction. The trial Court had decreed the suit. The defendant No.2 therein, so also the sisters who were not made parties to the suit preferred two separate appeals. The appeals came to be allowed. Against that the original plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeals. 2. Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court had rightly declared the share of the present plaintiff but the appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the said finding. Even in a compromise decree in RCS No.413/1983, the defendant No.1 had given his half share to the plaintiff. In light of that according to 3 Mr.Dharashive, learned counsel, no error could be found with the judgment of the trial Court. 3. I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The plaintiff had suppressed filing of RCS No.47/2000 by the sisters in which the plaintiff No.1 was also a party along with the present defendants. The Court decreed the said suit carving out separate shares. In the said suit even the compromise decree of RCS No.413/1983 was considered by the Court. The present plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the decree passed in RCS No. 47/2009. The said appeal came to be dismissed. The execution petition in respect of RCS No. 47/2000 is also filed and pending. In the suit the plaintiff did not make the sisters as parties to the suit as such sisters had filed separate appeal with leave to appeal. As the interest of the sisters was affected by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court they have every right to file an appeal and the same was rightly considered by the lower appellate Court. 4 4. In view of the fact that the shares of the parties were crystalised in RCS No.47/2000, the parties would be governed by their respective shares delineated in the said decree and the plaintiffs would be entitled for the shares as detailed in the decree passed in RCS No.47/2000. 5. In light of the same, no substantial questions of law are involved in the Second Appeals. The Second Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeals, the Civil Applications do not survive and they are disposed of accordingly. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa477.10 5