1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.546 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2010 Ramakant @ Ramesh Rajaram Bhosale .. Appellant. Vs. Shrikant Rajaram Bhosale .. Respondent. Mr.S.R.Ganbavale for the appellant. Mr.V.B.Rajure for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 7/12/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the appeal court in regular civil appeal no.298 of 2007 filed by the appellant-plaintiff, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the trial Court in regular civil suit No.94 of 1994. The suit was filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family property. There is no dispute that during pendency of the suit plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.6 filed an application for adding them as party defendant in the suit. Plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.6 S 2 claimed to be the son and the wife respectively of plaintiff no.1. There application was allowed. Accordingly, plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.6 were added as defendants in the suit. Thereafter plaintiff no.2 filed an application for transposing him as plaintiff in the suit. That application was also allowed. At no point of time plaintiff no.1 i.e. the appellant challenged the orders passed on the applications filed by plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.6. He allowed plaintiff no.2 to contest the suit as plaintiff. The suit was decreed and all parties to the suit were allotted share in the joint family property. It is thereafter plaintiff no.1 filed the appeal. In the appeal, plaintiff no.1 challenged his relationship with defendant no.6 and plaintiff no.2 as wife and son. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the issue whether plaintiff no.2 is the son of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.6 is the wife of plaintiff no. 1 has not been considered by the appeal court in proper perspective and that they have been wrongly allotted share in the joint family property. It appears that the appellant had filed R.C.S.No.474 of 1992 in the Civil Court at Kolhapur for declaration that defendant no.6 is not his wife and plaintiff no.2 is not his son. The said suit was decided on merits and it was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4.3.1996. It has further come on record that against this judgment the appellant 3 filed regular appeal No.303 of 1996 and said appeal was also dismissed on 10.2.1998. In view thereof it is clear that the relationship cannot be disputed in the present proceedings and that stood settled in regular civil suit no.474 of 1992. In the circumstances I find no merit in the second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)