FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.7 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.7 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.7 OF 2009 Along with Along with Along with Civil Application No.6 of 2009 Civil Application No.6 of 2009 Civil Application No.6 of 2009 -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Mr.Dilip Bodke, for the appellants. Mr K.V.Saste, for the respondents. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 22nd JANUARY, 2009 DATED: 22nd JANUARY, 2009 DATED: 22nd JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. . This Appeal from order is directed against an order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, rejecting the application at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit no.197 of 2007. The appellants-plaintiffs claim that they have right in the suit property, it being an ancestral property. It appears that all the plaintiffs are heirs of Tukaram Bhiva Talekar. Tukarm had step mother Sonabai. She had filed suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 1965 for partition and possession. The suit was decreed on 18.4.1967 and by virtue of the decree the suit property was allotted to the share of Sonabai. Sonabai executed a Gift Deed on 10.3.2006 in favour of defendant no.1. It is against this backdrop, the plaintiffs claim that the suit property is their ancestral property and they have share in the same. Mr Bodke, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the decree in the suit filed by Sonbai is not binding on the plaintiffs since they were not made parties in the suit. This contention deserves to be rejected outright for more than one reasons: firstly, no such declaration is sought by the plaintiffs and secondly such contention is raised for the first time after more than 40 years. I do not find any reason to entertain this Appeal. For the reasons stated in the impugned order, this Appeal from order is dismissed. . The trial court shall deal with the suit on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made in these proceedings arising from Exhibit-5 application. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)