1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.NO.5705 OF 2005 IN S.A.ST.NO.11082 OF 2005 Arun Janardhan Pophali through L.Rs. (a) Vibha and three ors. ..vs.. Ku.Kumud Bhaurao Lokhande and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 29th September, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri N.A.Vyavahare, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by original defendant no.1 Arun. A civil suit was filed by Prabhakar against Shri Arun and Vibha for possession and damages, of the suit house. It was alleged that the suit property was originally owned by one Atmarapant who died leaving behind him two sons - Balwant and Tryambak. Prabhakar is the son of Trambak. Prabhakar’s brother Bhaskarrao is son of 2 Balwant. He had allowed defendants Arun and Vibha to occupy the suit property as a licensees. Plaintiff Prabhakar, therefore, called upon Arun and Vibha to vacate the premises. They did not, hence he filed the suit. 3. The defendants i.e. the present appellants filed written statement and contested the suit and they denied that they were in possession of the suit property as licensees. In fact, according to them, deceased Bhaskarrao has executed a Will in their favour in 1979 and they have become full owner of the suit property. The said suit was contested by Arun and Vibha as already said. 4. The learned judge of the trial court upon consideration of the evidence found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that property belonged to them and defendants were the licensees. Holding so, he dismissed the suit. 5. Against this dismissal, Prabhakar preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.432 of 1995. The learned judge of the appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that he has preferred this appeal 3 because of the fact that there is a finding on point no.4 recorded by the first appellate court. He submits that it has been held by the first appellate court that plaintiff/appellants had half share in the suit property only. 7. After having heard Shri Dedshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear to me that this appeal has been preferred against finding recorded on an issue. Law is well settled on the point that no appeal lies against findings recorded by the court. The appeal lies against decree alone. There is no decree against the appellant and therefore the appellant has no right to prefer the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute