1 SA 409.2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.409 OF 2006 Sampatabai W/o Narayan Sagar .... APPELLANT V E R S U S Sadhu S/o Shankar Sarwade & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.M.L.Dharashive ,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 1. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/03/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. The respondent/plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and injunction in respect of 3 Acres 20 Gunthas land out of land G.No. 20 situated at western side of the southern portion of the said land. The trial Court decreed the Suit. The defendant preferred Appeal. The appellate Court dismissed Appeal confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2 SA 409.2006 3. Mr. M.L.Dharashive, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below were guided by an earlier litigation, but this Court in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1987 vide Judgment dated 30/6/2008 had held that the present appellant has got share on the northern side to the extent of 14 Acres and in view of the subsequent Judgments passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1987, the case of the defendant stands proved and the plaintiff would not have any right. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff can not get any title over the said portion of the land as his vendor Shankar himself lacked the title. 4. Mr. S.B.Ghatol Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff submits that the subsequent Judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1987 on the contrary would substantiate the case of the present respondents in as much as it has been clarified that the present appellant has got share to the extent of 14 Acres from the northern side. The present respondent is claiming his right to the extent of 3 Acres 20 gunthas of the western side of the southern portion of the land. It is not disputed that Shankar had share to the extent of 14 Acres. As the present respondent has purchased from the share of Shankar, the present appellant does not have any right or title to cause interference in the possession of the present respondent. 3 SA 409.2006 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by both the Courts. 6. The previous litigation shows that the present appellant only has an interest to the extent of 14 Acres of land out of S.No. 20 which is totally admeasuring 28 Acres and the said right is in respect of the northern side of the said S.No. 20. The perusal of the sale deed in favour of the present respondent no. 1 shows that he has purchased only 3 Acres 20 gunthas land from the western side of the southern portion of the land. The present Appellant has no concern with the said land. 7. The Court below have arrived at the proper conclusion. The Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 8. In the light of above, the Civil Application for leave to amend the Written Statement is also rejected. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 409.2006 4 SA 409.2006