1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 192 OF 1995 1. Donaldas Sudkoba Chavan Since deceased through Lrs. 1a) Ravindra Donaldas Chavan and ors. ..Applicants Vs. 1. Manorma Balkrishna Chavan and ors. ..Respondents Mr.Datta Pawar i/by Khandeparkar and Associates for applicants. Mr.S.V. Palsuledesai for respondent no.1. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. September 14, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for all the parties. 2. The present applicants are the legal heirs of Donaldas Sudkoba Chavan who was defendant no.2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 102 of 1988. The said suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Ratnagiri on 27/11/1992 and along with the plaintiffs, the share of defendant nos.1 and 2 in the joint family property was shown at 6/20th each i.e. the plaintiffs on one hand and defendant no.1 separately and defendant no.2 separately on the other hand. The said decree was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1993 by the plaintiffs and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 21/1/1995 by the learned Joint District Judge, Ratnagiri. The plaintiffs approached this court in Second Appeal No. 192 of 1995 and the same came to be decided as per the consent terms filed by the parties, on 18/1/2008. The defendant no.2 seeks to review the said order. 2 3. It is abundantly clear in the order dated 18/1/2008 that the share of the plaintiffs as declared at 6/20th and the share of the defendant nos.1 and 2 is also 6/20th each and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court has been maintained as it is so far as the present applicant/defendant no.2 is concerned. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs are thus right in their contentions that the order dated 18/1/2008 in no way affects the share of defendant no.2, as has been decreed by the trial court, though he was not a party to the consent terms, on the basis of which the Second Appeal came to be decided by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that based on the order dated 18/1/2008, defendant no.1 and defendant nos.2 and 4 have filed a fresh suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 102 of 2008. If the claim made in the said suit is contrary to the decree passed in RCS No. 102 of 1988 and confirmed by the first Appellate Court as well as in the order under review and passed by this court on 18/1/2008, the applicants remedy to challenge the same is not taken away and in no case the decree confirmed in favour of defendant no.2 in RCS No.102 of 1988 has been varied in the joint suit family property, by this Court. 6. Hence, the application fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)