IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2008 Akaram @ Ganagaram Mahadeo Barge. ... Appellant. V/s. Satish Ramchandra Barge and others. ... Respondents. M.N.Dhamal for the appellant. Vinod Jadhav i/b. Vijay Patil for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5, 6A to 6C and 7. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 24th September 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, one has to conclude that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 3. Even otherwise, appeal has been dismissed against respondent No.2 vide order dated 1st August, 2007. With the result, impugned judgment and decree has become final and conclusive against respondent No.2. In view of the judgment of this Court in Sheela wd/o. Vijay v. Central Bank, 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 928, this appeal is liable to be dismissed since impugned decree has become final and conclusive against respondent No.2. There cannot be two inconsistent decrees in one proceeding. Even the connected second appeal bearing (St.)No.19549/2002 has already been dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA J.)