1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.369 OF 2006 Ramu Narsu Shinde Since Deceased 1. Shri Dattu Rama Shinde ...Appellant. v. 1 Jayram Baliram Tare Since deceased 1A Shri Ramprasad J. Tare & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/by P.S.Dani, advs. For the Appellant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 31st July , 2009 P.C. 1 The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. He filed regular civil suit no.70 of 1978 claiming that he had purchased the suit land being gat no.89 (Survey No.47/2) situated at village Adhiv, Taluka: Pandharpur from its original owner Baliram under registered sale deed dated 20.11.67. According to him, he was in possession of land as tenant prior to sale deed and after the sale deed, he was in continuous possession as owner till 1976-77 when he was dispossessed by the defendants. Alternatively, he contended that he had perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. Therefore, he sought a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land and also claimed 2 possession. Defendants denied title or possession of the plaintiff/appellant and also denied that he had perfected his title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. Suit came to be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.259/89. Appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal 2 On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, it appears that the plaintiff had previously filed regular civil suit no.94/69 against the defendants contending that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as tenant and on the basis of sale deed dated 20.11.1967 executed by the landlord, he had become owner in that suit. He had sought decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from causing any interference in his possession. That suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, defendant no.2 preferred regular civil appeal no.237/75. That appeal was allowed on 12.9.1977 and in the result, regular civil suit no.94/69 filed by the present plaintiff was dismissed. After that the plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.70/78 contending that he had title over the property or he had perfected his title by adverse possession. Courts below held that in the earlier litigation, plaintiff had failed to prove his title and possession and it was held that defendant no. 2 was in possession and that on the same cause of action, the plaintiff 3 could not file second suit again for declaration of his title and possession. It was held that findings in the earlier suit would operate as res-judicata against the present plaintiff/appellant. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, no fault can be found in the concurrent finding of the fact by both the Courts below. No question of law is involved in the present appeal. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)