1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2007 Madhukrar Paasharamsa Pawar & Ors. ... Appellants (Org.Defts.3,4,7 & 10) Vs. Laxmibai Narayansa Pawar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Jaydeep S.Deo,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Kate,Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 6th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants have given a geneology of the family. Pandusa and Chandusa were brothers having half share each in certain undivided family property. Chandusa mortgaged his undivided half share to Vitthalsa Pawar. Later on, in Regular Darkhast No.1502 of 1938, the said half share was put to auction and on 14.12.1939, Vitthalsa purchased the share of Chandusa. Thus, Vitthalsa and Pandusa e became co-owners of the property. Vitthalsa filed a suit for partition and in execution of that decree, Vitthalsa sold his half share to Pandusa by a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1947 and thus Pandusa became 2 owner of whole of that property. Lateron, Pandusa mortgaged the property to one Ramkrishna. After the death of Ramkrishna, his wife Laxmibai filed Special Civil Suit No.84 of 1965 for recovery of mortgage money. Suit was decreed. The property was put to auction for recovery of the decretal amount. That was stayed to the extent of half share on the basis of Regular Civil Suit No. 109 of 1969 filed by the respondent No.3. The remaining half property was purchased by respondent No.1 i.e. Laxmibai. Laxmibai again filed Regular Darkhast No.214 of 1975 for partition and possession and she was put in possession of half hare of the property. The remaining half share plus the amount of Rs.6,000/- was to be given to the present appellants, who are original defendants Nos.3, 4, 7 and 10. Accordingly, respondent No.1 deposited Rs. 6,000/-. Respondent No.2 sold his remaining half share from western side to respondent No.1 for Rs.6,000/- and thus respondent No.1 again became owner of the entire property. Respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.424 of 1976 seeking declaration that she has became absolute owner of the property and also entitled to refund of Rs.6,000/- deposited by her. The suit was decreed. However, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.45 of 1986. That appeal was partly allowed and the order declaring the respondent No.1/plaintiff to be entitled to Rs.6,000/- was set aside, but the decree declaring that she is the absolute owner of the complete suit property was maintained. In the present 3 appeal, the said decree has been challenged by the appellants, who are some of the defendants. 3. It is clear that the present appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 8 belong to the branch of Chandusa. Their half share in the suit property was sold away to Vitthalsa in 1939 and later on, Vitthalsa had sold that property to Pandusa. In view of this, the branch of Chandusa had no right or interest in the said property since 1939. In 1947, whole of the property had gone to Pandusa and later on the said property came to Laxmibai/respondent No.1 as stated above. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the present appellants could have no right or interest in the suit property. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order nor any question of law is involved in the present Appeal. 5. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)