SA.317-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 317 OF 2010 Smt. Sulochana Aadappa Kadage & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Sanjay Baburao Kadage & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Tejapal S. Ingale, for the Appellants. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Respondent No.1. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, who were original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for simplicitor injunction, restraining the defendants from obstruction of one-half portion of the suit land. The said suit, however, was dismissed by the Trial Court. The trial Court in the judgment observed that an order of injunction could not be passed against a co-owner. It further observed that at the highest, the plaintiffs could file a suit for partition and separate possession. The appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the said SA.317-10 - 2 - judgment and order. The District Court modified decree of the trial Court by setting aside the finding recorded against issue Nos. 1 and 4. However, in the operative part, the District Court simply dismissed the appeal and did not deal with the cross objection. In my view, the plaintiff cannot make any grievance because, at the highest, defendants/ respondents herein would not be affected by the non-inclusion of the said finding in the operative part of the order. The defendant has not preferred a second appeal in this Court. No substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal, in view of the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It is always open for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and if such a suit is filed, the trial Court will have to decide the said suit on facts and in accordance with law. [ V. M. KANADE J.]