1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.619 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1756 OF 2004 Shaikh Usman Sk. Kasim since deceased through Lrs. Ekbal Usman Sk. and Ors. ...Appellants. v. Sandalbi @ Chandbi Sk. & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. M.M.Sathaye, adv. For the Appellants. Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 23rd July , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Respondent no.1 filed regular civil suit no.782 of 1981 for partition and separate possession to the extent of house no.3056. The suit property original belonged to one Ismail, who had three sons namely, Noora, Usman and Rehman. Plaintiff is daughter-in-law of Rehman while the defendant no.1, who has preferred the first appeal as well as the second appeal, is grandson of Noora. It was the contention of the defendant/appellant that the plaintiff had earlier also filed regular civil suit no.659 of 1977 for partition of some property. No claim was made about the present suit property. Therefore, second suit is barred under the 2 provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Both the Courts below rejected this contention and the suit came to be decreed. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/24th share in the property. Defendant nos.35 and 36 were found to be entitled to 2/9th share. The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there is no dispute about the computation of shares under the Muslim Law by which the parties are governed. He mainly pressed tenability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. It appears that the suit property was purchased by Ismail, great grandfather of the defendant no.1 under the registered sale deed dated 3.10.1887 while the house no.3210, which was the subject matter of the earlier suit, was jointly purchased by the plaintiff’s husband and heirs of his brother. Therefore, nature of the properties and the claims therein would be totally different. Therefore, the provisions of Order II Rule 2 would have no application to the matter. There is no question of law involved in the present appeal. 3 Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.1756 of 2004 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 3