1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 598/2006 ARUNBAI DAMODHAR MUDDEWAR VERSUS HIDAYATBEE W/O HAJI SHAIKH CHAND AND ORS CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for appellant. PER COURT: - 1 I am told that the suit was filed initially by 33 persons. Each of such plaintiff claimed declaration of title and injunction etc. in respect of separately identifiable plot of land. All the plaintiffs claimed their title from one Shaikh Chand the husband of respondent No.1 Hidayatbi. During the pendency of the suit, 9 plaintiffs withdrew their claims. So, 24 plaintiffs continued the suit. As per the judgment of the first appeal Court, original plaintiffs No.17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31 and 32 had failed to prove their title to their respective plots and so the suit, to their extent was dismissed. The reason why they failed to prove their title was also simple. The learned judge of the first appeal Court, observed that these plaintiffs simply did not file their original title deeds before the Court. They did not prove such deeds and so they failed to prove their title. On the other hand, the remaining 16 plaintiffs produced original sale deeds and they even proved them. One of the unsuccessful plaintiffs the original plaintiff No.19 alone has filed this 2 second appeal. 2 In view of the fact that 9 plaintiffs had withdrawn themselves from the litigation, those are not parties to this second appeal. They were neither party to the first appeal. The appeal in such situation is maintainable without making them parties. But the appeal can not be admitted because the appellant - original plaintiff No.19 admittedly did not prove his title. He had failed to produce original sale deed before the Court and he failed to prove the same. In view of this, there appears no substantial question of law involved in this case. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. Date : 13th July, 2010 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/sa598.06