1 sa736.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15450 OF 2011 Kamlakar s/o Bapurao Kulkarni, Age: 52 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Malegaon (Khurd), Tal.Georai, Dist. Beed and others. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Popat s/o Vitthal Kulkarni, Age:51 yrs, Occ: Service, R/o. Jod Malegaon, Tal.Georai, Dist. Beed, now at Targalli, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants- applicants. Mr. A.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 2 sa736.11 2. The Counsel for the appellants submits that, on the basis of the declaration by the Civil Cort in clause-2 of the operative part of the order of the suit, original plaintiffs are insisting for change in revenue record in respect of the suit property. Learned Counsel further submits that, on the basis of the said declaration in the civil suit, the respondents i.e. original plaintiffs have also filed proceedings for getting succession certificate. The appellants apprehend that, the suit property which they have purchased in the year 1932 and right accrued to that effect may be affected because of such declaration in the suit. It is further submitted that, the said suit which was filed by the plaintiffs was not within limitation. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellants, their application for leave to appeal should have been allowed by the District Judge-3, Beed. 3. I have given due consideration to the 3 sa736.11 submissions of the Counsel for the parties. The lower appellate Court in para-13 has held that, the appellant has not shown anything that they have legal grievance against the decision which wrongfully deprives them or affects their title. The appellants have not shown anything that, they are some way or the other being affected by the judgment by the trial Court or their rights have been infringed. Therefore, the lower appellate Court after considering the submissions of the appellants and other material placed on record, rejected the application for leave to appeal. The lower appellate Court has recorded the finding that, the appellants have not placed any convincing proof on record that the appellants are somehow affected by the judgment and decree of the trial Court or they have not brought anything on record that, such decree should prejudice to their interest or adversely affected. 4. Therefore, in my opinion, the view taken by the lower appellate Court cannot be faulted. 4 sa736.11 The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration in this second appeal, same stands rejected. However, it will be open for the appellants to participate in those proceedings where the rights of the appellants will be directly affected. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/DEC11