:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.519 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.519 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.519 OF 2008 Jangubhai Balabhai Mulani, Since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives, 1A. Jahirabai Mard Jangubhai Mulani Since deceased through his heirs and legal representative, 1B. Gaphurbhai Jangubhai Mulani & Ors. ...Appellants. v. 1.Maheboob Balabhai Mulani since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives 1A. Musa Maheboob Mulani & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Dilip Bodake , adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. DATE: 4th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Jangubhai. Original plaintiff was brother of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.56 of 1989 contending that the suit land bearing gat no.1398/119 and gat no.1398/13 situated at villages Malawadi, Taluka:Man, District:Satara were service inam lands held by his father. Defendant no.1 sold away the suit property to the defendant nos.2 to 6 under a registered sale deed dated 17-3-88. According to the plaintiff, he has right of pre-emption under the Muslim law and :2: secondly, the sale deed was not valid for want of necessary permission from the Government. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff in respect of right of pre-emption. The trial Court also did not accept his contention that the sale deed is invalid for want of necessary permission and the suit was dismissed. The legal representatives of the plaintiff filed regular civil appeal no.106 of 2001. That appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the legal representatives of the plaintiff have preferred the second appeal. 2. The lower appellate Court clearly noted that not only the suit property was recorded in the name of the defendant no.1 alone, the plaintiff was shown to be the owner of the other properties separately and admittedly they were not residing together. There is no material to show that the plaintiff was shown as co-owner of that property or that he was holding property as a tenant in common with the defendant no.1. The Courts below also rejected the contention of the plaintiff that he had right of way from that property or that he was taking water from a well situated in that property. In view of the provisions of Section 231 of Mahomedan Law by Mulla, right of pre-emption or Shuffa is available only to the co-sharer in that property or a participator in immunities and appendages, such as right of way or right :3: of discharge water and owners of adjoining immovable property but not their tenants. Claim of the plaintiff does not fall in any of these categories. Therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 3. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)