1 sa595­10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.595 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1547 OF 2010 Annaso Aadappa Chougule .. Appellant V/s. Nemu Aadappa Chougule & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 5. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Appellant is the original defendant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. In a suit for injunction filed by the respondents, the trial Court has passed the decree against the appellant restraining him from disturbing the possession of the respondent over the suit property. In Appeal preferred by he appellant, the said decree has been confirmed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in Appeal arising out of Regular Civil Suit No.191 of 1994, there was a finding recorded that the predecessor of the appellant was the owner of the suit property and even the present respondents were parties to the said proceedings. He, therefore, 2 sa595­10 submitted that the suit filed by the respondents on the basis of the title was not competent. 3. I have considered the submissions. Both the Courts below have noted the admitted position that the appellant filed a suit in the year 1992 against the respondents for injunction on the footing that the appellant was in possession of the suit property. The case of the appellant was that he was in adverse possession. The suit was dismissed and the decree passed in the suit has been confirmed in the Second Appeal by this Court. Therefore, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove his possession and the very fact that the appellant claimed adverse possession shows that he impliedly admitted the title of the respondents­plaintiffs. 4. In view of the decree passed in his own suit, now the appellant cannot claim to be in possession of the suit property and cannot claim any title in respect of the suit property. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. Civil Application No.1547 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)