1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NOS.108, 109 & 114 OF 1999 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8258 OF 2010 IN S.A.NO.108 OF 1999 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1397 OF 1999 in S.A. N0.114 OF 1999 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : July 14, 2010 Shri Satyajit C. Bora, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ---------- 1. All these three second appeals arise out of the two suits i.e.R.C.S. Nos. 342 of 1996 and 344 of 1996 filed by Purushottam who is Respondent No.1 in these appeals. R.C.S. No.342 of 1996 filed by Purushottam was for declaration that 2 he is Karta of the family and that the suit properties shown in schedules "A", "B" and "C" to the said suit are joint family properties. R.C.S. No.344 of 1996 filed by Purushottam was for injunction in respect of two lands i.e. block Nos.29 and 33 situated at village Vadri, Taluka and District Jalgaon. 2. Both the suits mentioned above were filed against sons Sudhakar and Ramesh who are appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2 respectively in all these three appeals. Appellant No.2 in Second Appeal No.108 of 1999 is the wife of appellant No.1 Sudhakar. After both the suits were decreed thereby declaring plaintiff-present respondent No.1 Purushottam as Karta and properties as joint family properties, injunction was issued against both sons of Purushottam i.e. Sudhakar and Ramesh (appellant No.1 3 and Respondent No.2 respectively.) 3. Against the judgment of the trial court, three regular civil appeals came to be filed before the district court by the present appellants. Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 1999 was against rejection of counterclaim filed by defendant in injunction suit wherein appellant claimed to be in exclusive possession of certain properties. Another Regular Civil Appeal No.90 of 1998 was against the declaration given in R.C.S. No.344 of 1996 and Regular Civil Appeal No.91 of 1998 was against the judgment and decree passed in declaration suit i.e. R.C.S. No.342 of 1996. 4. Since all the three Regular Civil Appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, vide common judgment and order dated 15.2.1999, present three second appeals have been filed. 4 Purushottam, who was the sole plaintiff in both the suits and who died pending final hearing of these second appeals, has left behind his appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2 who are his sons and as such his heirs who are also having sisters who are added as party-respondents in these second appeals. 5. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties, cause of action itself has not remained as between the appellants and respondents as they have become co-owners as legal representatives of the deceased Purushottam. 6. In above circumstances, all these three second appeals do not survive and are accordingly disposed of as being infructuous inasmuch as the main contesting party-Purushottam is no more alive. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 5 parties are at liberty to file suit for partition, if they are so advised. 7. With observations as above, all these three second appeals are disposed of. Since these appeals are not decided on merits, findings of the trial court and the first appellate court would not be binding on the parties in the partition suit. 8. Consequent to disposal of appeals as being infructuous, civil applications in the respective appeals do not survive and the same stand disposed of as such. pnd/sa108.99 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)