1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 271/2009 1. ASHOK S/O SUDAM MESHRAM AND OTHERS .. Petitioner/s R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 2. RAVINDRA S/O SUDAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 3. BABLU S/O SUDAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 4. VARSHA D/O SUDAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 5. SHAILAJA D/O SUDAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 6. SHAKUNTALA W/O SUDAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR VERSUS 1. CHANDRABHAGABAI WD/O SADASHIVRAO RAGHTATE AND OTHERS R/O VAKILPETH, NAGPUR .. Respondent/s 2. KUSUM W/O FAGO R/O ITWARI, NAGPUR 3. NARAYAN S/O CHINDHU WANGE R/O KANHALGAON, NAGPUR 4. SUDAM S/O CHINTUJI MESHRAM R/O NOT KNOWN 5. LAXMAN S/O CHINDHU WANGE R/O KANHALGAON, NAGPUR 2 6. SUKHDEO S/O PUNJARAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 7. MADHU PUNJARAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 8. NANDA D/O PUNJARAM MESHRAM R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 9. MANORAMA RAMTEKE R/O PARSODI, DIST NAGPUR 10. SUSHILA HANSRAJ RAMTEKE (FULWALE) R/O NEW BABULKHEDA, JAYBHIM NAGAR, NAGPUR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.V. Kaore, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 4 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. By this second appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellants, and the judgment passed by the appellate Court on 5/1/2009 dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 2/5/1998. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The suit property originally belonged to one Chindu. He had executed a registered sale deed on 25/6/1963 in favour of Sadashiv, the defendant no.1 to this suit. Some property was thereafter sold by Chindu to the 3 defendant nos. 7 and 8. The defendant nos. 7 and 8 are the father and the uncle of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 6. It is not in dispute that Sadashio had filed a suit against Chindu and others wherein the present defendant nos. 7 and 8, the father and the uncle of the plaintiffs, were also joined as defendants. The suit filed by Sadashio for possession of property was decreed on 1/7/1980. In pursuance of the decree, Sadashio had filed execution proceedings against Chindu and others and in those proceedings, widow of Sadashio had taken possession of the suit property on 26/4/1991 and on 7/3/1982. In this background, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, the sons and the nephews of the defendant nos. 7 and 8, for a declaration that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 791/1971 filed by Sadashio was not binding on them. The appellants/ plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit field. The trial Court held that Chindu had lost his title over the suit property when he sold the same to Sadashio Raghatate on 25/6/1963 and, therefore, the same property could not have been subsequently sold by Chindu to the father and the uncle of the plaintiffs. The trial Court further held that the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 797/1997 filed by Sadashio against Chindu and others which included the father and the uncle of the plaintiffs, was binding on the plaintiffs. The findings 4 recorded by the trial Court were upheld by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the appellants. As the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 797/1971 had attained finality, the Courts held that the plaintiffs had no case for instituting the present suit, more so when the plaintiffs/appellants had not succeeded in proving that the sale deed executed by Chindu in favour of Sadashio on 25/6/1963, was nominal. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP