1 sa211-09 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.211 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2009 Sabaji Mahadeo Parab .. Appellant V/s. Waman Tukaram Parab & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. S. S. Lanke for the appellant. Mr. V. A. Sugdare for the respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Appellant is the first defendant. In the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, a declaration has been granted that the deity and the articles for performing Pooja except certain articles are joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly, a declaration has been granted in terms of Clause 2 of the decree of the trial Court. After finding that the deity and other articles held in common by the parties were removed by the appellant, the trial Court has passed a decree directing the appellant to bring back the deity and other articles to the house No.340. Clause (4) of the decree protects the right of both the parties to perform Pooja. 2. The Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the House No.340 is no more in existence and it has come down with the passage of time. He states that as the head of the family, the appellant has a right to keep the deity and 2 sa211-09 other articles in other house and perform Pooja therein. 2. I find that in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment, the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that there is no dispute between the parties that house No.340 was ancestral house property of the appellant the respondent Nos.1 to 3 (original plaintiffs) and respondent No.13 herein. Further finding is that the deity and other articles of Pooja in the said house which was admittedly an ancestral house property also belong to the said parties. All that the Appellant has claimed a right to perform Pooja being the eldest member of the family. Therefore, no fault can be found with the declaration granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. Whether the house No.340 has collapsed or not or whether the decree passed by the trial Court is executable or not are the questions to be decided by the Executing Court as and when the issue of the executability of the decree arises. All the objections in that behalf raised by the appellant are expressly kept open. 4. Subject to what is observed above, no substantial question of law arises. No interference is called for with the concurrent decrees passed by both the Courts. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. There is no order as to costs. 6. Civil Application No.903 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)