- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.76 OF 1997 Arjun Laxman Satpute, since deceased by his L.Rs. 1. Ganpati Arjun Satpute, Since deceased by his L.Rs. 1. Smt.Ushatai Ganpatrao Satpute and Others. .. Appellants Vs. Ramchandra Vishnu Gondkar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni for the Appellants. Shri M.R.Suryawanshi for the Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. The Appellants are legal representatives of the original Defendant No.9 in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the first respondent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the original Defendant No.9 to the District Court has been dismissed. It appears that the original Defendant No.9 claims to be the purchaser - 2 - of the property from one of the members of the family of the first respondent. He claimed title on the basis of the said purchase and also claimed to be a bonafide purchaser. The Courts below have relied upon a finding recorded in a suit for injunction filed by the original Defendant No.1 on the issue of his title. In the said suit for injunction filed by the original Defendant No.1, a finding was recorded that the Appellant has failed to prove his title and the judgment of the trial Court in the said suit has been confirmed upto this Court. 2. The submission of the learned advocate for the Appellants is that the earlier suit was filed by the original Defendant No.1 for simplicitor injunction and only issue is to be decided in the said suit was as regards the possession of the original Defendant No.9 He, therefore, submitted that the finding recorded in such a suit was not binding on the Court dealing with the issue of general partition. 3. I have given careful considration to the submissions. It appears that the original Defendant No.1 had filed a suit for injunction on the basis of the title, and therefore, the issue of title was framed by the trial Court which was decided against - 3 - the predecessor of the Appellants. The finding of the trial Court in the said suit was confirmed in the Civil Appeal as well as in the Second Appeal. Thus, the issue of title clearly arose in a suit filed against the predecessor of the Appellants and the said issue has been finally decided against the predecessor of the Appellant. 4. Therefore, I find no fault with the findings recorded by the trial Court and appellate Court. 5. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE