1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.134/2003 [Madhukar Onkar Raut .vrs. Prabhakar Vishnupant Gangakhedkar and four others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 11 th February, 2009. Heard Advocate Sambre with Advocate Khadse for the appellant/original plaintiff and Advocate Saoji for respondent no.1. Advocate Sambre argues that the interest which were conferred by sell upon respondent no.2 were transferred by him to the present appellant and as such the present appellant was and is competent to maintain the suit for eviction. He argues that respondent no.1 is really not concerned with the title of the suit property or the effect of sell in favour of respondent no.2 or the other beneficiaries i.e. respondent no.4 and 5. He points out that in earlier round of litigation, the suit was decreed and after remand again the trial court had decreed the suit after observing that the respondent no.2 could validly sold whatever interest to 2 the present appellant. Advocate Saoji, on the other hand, states that as the sell conferred only a limited state upon respondent no.2, respondent no.2 could not have executed any sale deed in favour of the appellant and the lower appellate court had appreciated the position correctly. He further states that this Second Appeal is already dismissed on 15.1.2009 against the respondent nos.4 and 5. Respondent no.2 had only limited interest and he could not have sold property to the present appellant. The appreciation of the lower appellate court is not erroneous or perverse. Moreover, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court against the appellant and in favour the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has attained finality because the present second appeal is dismissed as far as respondent nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The judgment and decree is not severable. In the circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Gulande