1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 156/2010 (Vinayak Wamanrao Dhokne & others VERSUS Arun Gajananrao Padegaonkar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2010 . Heard. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They are the sons of one Wamanrao, who was the tenant of Gajanan, the father of the respondents. The tenancy was in respect of fourteen acres of agricultural land. According to the plaintiffs, in the revenue proceedings, the purchase price of the suit field was fixed and the same was paid by Wamanrao to Gajanan. Later on, according to the plaintiffs, the respondents dispossessed the plaintiffs from 2.60 acres of land but, the plaintiffs were able to regain the possession. The plaintiffs then filed a suit for injunction bearing Regular Civil Suit No.173/1974 restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. In the said suit, the respondents had filed a counter claim for restoration 2 of possession of 3.75 acres of land. The civil suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of permanent injunction was dismissed and the counter claim was partly allowed to the extent of 2.60 acres of land. The plaintiffs raised the objection to the executability of the decree passed in favour of the respondents in regard to 2.60 acres of land. The objection was rejected and the order passed by the executing Court was confirmed in a Writ Petition filed by the appellants and a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was withdrawn with liberty to file the appropriate proceedings. After the letters patent appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of 2.60 acres of land. The trial and the first appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs failed in proving that they were the owners of the land admeasuring 2.60 acres of land. According to both the Courts, the judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No.173/1974 operated as Res Judicata and the suit was liable to be dismissed on this count also. The Courts held that the appellants/plaintiffs did not have a right to seek a declaration regarding modification of the decree passed in the previous suit. According to the Court, the issue was 3 already decided in Regular Civil Suit No.173/1974 and in Regular Civil Appeal No.95/1988 arising out of the judgment passed in the same. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record, specially the decree passed in the previous proceedings bearing Regular Civil Suit No.173/1974. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 (Kiran Singh & others Versus Chaman Paswan & others) and relied on by the counsel for the appellants, does not have applicability to the facts of the case. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE