sa-8-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj SECOND APPEAL NO.8 OF 2010 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.42 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2010 Dhondubai M. Naikwadi (since deceased) through L.R s. & Others .. Appellants V/s. Smt. Niyajmatibee B. Mullani (since deceased) through L.R s. & Others .. Respondents. Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar, for Appellants Shri Amit Borkar, for Respondent Nos.1A,1B(1) to 1B(4), 1B/5(A) to 1B/5(C), 1C(1) to 1C(5), 1D to 1G. CORAM:- B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED:- 25th AUGUST,2010. P.C. 1 By this Second Appeal, Appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned Jt.Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur vide inadvertent order dated 15th March, 2005 thereby dismissing Regular sa-8-10.sxw Civil Suit no.861 of 1994 filed by present Appellants and in Regular Civil Suit No.1798 of 2000 thereby decreeing the suit and the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.329 of 2005 and 328 of 2005 thereby dismissing the appeals. 2 Regular Civil Suit No.861 of 1994 came to be filed by the Plaintiff (present Appellants)thereby claiming that she was in possession of the suit property as legal heir of one Chand and, therefore, claiming decree of declaration as well as perpetual prohibitory injunction. Regular Civil Suit No.1798 of 2000 came to be filed by the Respondents in the present Appeal, claiming therein that they were legal heirs of deceased Chand and the present Appellant was working as a house maid, hence they were entitled to possession of the suit premises. They claimed a decree for possession and mesne profits. Suit filed by the present Appellants came to be dismissed, whereas the one filed by Respondents was decreed. Being aggrieved thereby two appeals preferred by the Appellants, before the learned District Judge were dismissed. Hence present Second Appeals. sa-8-10.sxw 3 Shri Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that both the courts have erroneously arrived at findings that the present Appellant was not legal heir of deceased Chand. It is submitted that the learned trial as well as Appellate Court have erred in holding that the Appellant was working as a maid servant and, therefore, judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4 Shri Borkar, learned counsel for the Respondents on the contrary submits that the courts below upon correct appreciation of the facts placed before them came to the conclusion that the present Appellants have failed to establish that she was legal heir of the deceased Chand and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 5 The present Appellants contended that she is daughter of Sahebji who was son of deceased Chand and Tarabai. Whereas present Respondent claims through Niyamtbee who was daughter of deceased Chand. Unless Plaintiff proves that she was legal heirs of deceased Chand and she is entitled to share in the property, no sa-8-10.sxw decree in her favour could have been passed. The courts below have rightly held on the basis of the evidence placed on record that the Dhondubai had failed to establish that she was legal heirs of deceased Chand. Insofar as Second suit is concerned, Respondents are legal heirs of deceased Chand. Since, it has been already held that the deceased Dhondubai has no right or claim in the property of deceased Chand, possession of Dhondubai would have to be treated as adverse possession upon her filing of the suit in the year 1994. As such no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 6 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeals, Civil Application No.108 of 2010 does not survives and stand disposed off. (B.R.GAVAI,J.)