-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.296 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.296 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.296 OF 2006 Sadanand Sitaram Gujar ...Appellant vs. Balaram Gopal Gujar (since deceased through L.Rs.) ...Respondents Mr.M.D.Modgi i/b Mr.S.M.Oak for the Appellant CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 9,2008 : JANUARY 9,2008 : JANUARY 9,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and that the decree passed in R.C.S.No.31 of 1971 is not binding on him. The trial court dismissed the suit and the Appellate court has confirmed the decree of the trial court. 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant is that the Appellant was not a party to the R.C.S.No.31 of 1971 and hence the decree passed in the said suit is not binding on him. The submission is that in view of the consent decree passed in R.C.S.No.7 of 1961, the suit property could not have been held as a joint family property as it was the exclusive property of the Appellant’s father . 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have -2- perused the impugned Judgments. The Appellant’s father was a party to the R.C.S.No.31 of 1971 and he contested the said suit. Moreover, a finding has been recorded in the said suit that the decree passed in R.C.S.No.7 of 1961 was not binding on the parties to the R.C.S.No.31 of 1971. 4. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE