1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2007 Mohmad Musa s/o Mohmad Khaja Qureshi .. APPELLANT VERSUS Khajasahab s/o Ismailsaheb Qureshi .. RESPONDENT Shri R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri J.R. Patil, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th July, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri Biradar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2 Appellant / plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit no. 67/1996 presented a plaint claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondent herein (defendant in Regular Civil Suit no. 67/1996). Respondent herein also presented a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 182/1995 claiming decree of declaration and injunction against the appellant herein. Appellant is the son of respondent. Both the suits presented by the appellant and respondent are in respect of land gat no. 19/1 admeasuring 1H and 84 R. It transpires that the appellant herein had sold the suit land in favour of one Yunus Khan Pathan. Said property was purchased by respondent for consideration of Rs.8,000/- on 9-2-1987. Respondent herein, father of the appellant, claims that he is the exclusive owner on the basis of the sale-deed 2 got executed by him and as such he is entitled for declaration and injunction. Suit presented by the respondent bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 182/95 was decreed by the trial court whereas suit presented by appellant herein bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 67/1996 came to be dismissed. Appellant herein presented only one appeal raising exception to the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 182/95. Appellate court dismissed the appeal against which the instant second appeal is presented. 3 Fact remains that the appellant herein has not raised the challenge to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 67/1996. Findings recorded in the companion suit have therefore attained finality. Judgment in the connected suit operates as res-judicata and creates a bar for consideration of the appeal presented against the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on a judgment in the matter of Harbans Singh and others vs. Sant Hari Singh and others reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 262. In this view of the matter appeal presented by the appellant does not call for any consideration. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa520.07.odt