IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIION SECOND APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2008 Shri Sudhir Shankar More ... Appellant Vs. Mr. Chandrakant Vishwanath Mogare & Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. Neeta P. Karnik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.H.Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 15th September,2008 DATE: 15th September,2008 DATE: 15th September,2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. One Bhiku Hari More was the tenant in the suit premises owned by the respondents. The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.55 of 1978 for eviction and possession against the defendant-tenant Bhiku Hari More. The suit was contested by the defendant. However, he died during the pendency of the suit and his 3 sons and a daughter were brought on record as his L.rs. who contested the suit. The suit was decreed. Against the said decree, the L.rs. of original defndant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.146 of 1987. That appeal was dismissed and thereafter the L.rs. of the original defendant preferred the Second Appeal no.716 of 1991. That appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on 13.3.2002 on merits. After that the respondents/decree holders filed Execution Petition No.6 of 2003. During execution of that decree, the present appellant raised obstruction. His objection came to be dismissed by the Executing Court. He preferred Civil Appeal No.61 of 2005. That appeal was also dismissed by the District Court. Therefore, he has preferred the Second Appeal. 3. According to the appellant, The original defendant Bhiku Hari More was his maternal grandfather. His mother had died when he was 1-1/2 year old. After the death of his mother,his father had re-married and he was maintained by the maternal grandfather as member of his family. He is Class I heir of defendant Bhiku and therefore he was entitled to be impleaded as the legal representative in the suit. However, he was not impleaded. According to him, he is entitled to be in possession of the suit property. This contention was rejected by both the Courts below. 4. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the present appellant was claiming right of occupation over the property only as a member of the family of the original defendant. It is not that after the death of the original tenant, the suit was not properly contested. In fact, as pointed out earlier, his sons and daughter were brought on record. They contested the suit. Not only that, after dismissal of the suit, they preferred the First Appeal and then Second Appeal and both these appeals were dismissed. The present appellant claimed to be 37 years old when he filed Regular Civil Appeal No.61 of 2005. It means he had already attained majority when the Regular Civil Appeal No.146 of 1987 was pending before the District Court. If he was so interested,he could have moved an application for being impleaded as one of the appellants in that matter, but he did not. This was not the suit for partition of the property of the deceased Bhiku Hari More wherein the suit could not be continued without joining the present appellant as one of the necessary parties. The dispute was only between the landlord and tenant for eviction and that the suit was duly contested. In such circumstances, I find no fault in the approach of the Courts below in rejecting his objection as well as the First appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal. 5. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, C.A.No.1370 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)