(1) SA. 645.2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2007 1] Govinda Bandu Wani, R/o : Sakri, Tal. : Sakri, Dist. : Dhule Since deceased through LRs. 1a] Sau. Anusayabai w/o Govinda Kothawade, Age : 63 years, Occu.: Household 1b] Bhalchandra Govinda Kothawade, Age : 43 years, Occu.: Business 1c] Dhondu Govinda Kothawade, Age : 41 years, Occu.: Business 1d] Pramod Govinda Kothawade, Age : 33 years, Occu.: Business, 1e] Sandip Govinda Kothawade, Age : 29 years, Occu.: Business All R/o : Sakri, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 1f] Minakshi Vasudev Bhambre, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Amalner, Dist. : Jalgaon 1g] Sunanda Arun Nandkar, Age : 33 years, Occu: Household, R/o Borkund, Dist. : Dhule .. Appellants VERSUS Ananda Deoram Patil R/o : Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. : Dhule, Since deceased through LRs. (2) SA. 645.2007 1. Panabai Ananda Patil, Age : 75 years, Occu.: Household 2. Atmaram Ananda Patil, Age : 59 years, Occu.: Nil, Both R/o : "Trimurti" Gulmohar Apartment, (in front of) Sawarkar Nagar, Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 3. Yashwant Ananda Patil, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Nil 4. Baliram Ananda Patil, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Sawarkar Nagar, Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 5. Devidas Ananda Patil, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Service 6. Vishwas Ananda Patil, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Nil, LRs. no. 3,5 and 6 are resident of Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 7. Pandit Ananda Patil, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Exide Battery Ltd., Akurdi, Pune 8. Venubai Atmaram Patil, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Deour, Tal. : Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 9. Mirabai Sitaram Shinde, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Samode, Tal : Sakri, Dist. Dhule .. Respondents (3) SA. 645.2007 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2008 1. Smt. Anusayabai w/o Govinda Kothawade, Age : 73 years, Occu.: Household Work, R/o Govind Nagar, Sakri, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 2. Bhalchandra S/o Govinda Kothawade, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Business, R/o As above 3. Dhondu Govinda Kothawade, Age : 41 years, Occu.: Business, R/o As above 4. Vinayak Govinda Kothawade, Age : 37 years, Occu.: Business 5. Pramod Govinda Kothawade, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Business, R/o : As above 6. Sandip S/o Govinda Kothawade, Age : 36 years, Occu.: Business R/o As above .. Appellants VERSUS Ananda Deoram Patil Since deceased through LRs. 1. Panabai Ananda Patil, Age : 75 years, Occu.: Household R/o : Chadvel Korde, Tq. : Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 2. Atmaram Ananda Patil, Age : 59 years, Occu.: Nil, Both R/o : "Trimurti" Gulmohar Apartment, (in front of) Sawarkar Nagar, Sakri, Dist. : Dhule (4) SA. 645.2007 3. Yashwant Ananda Patil, Age : 56 years, Occu.: Nil R/o : Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 4. Baliram Ananda Patil, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Sawarkar Nagar, Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 5. Devidas Ananda Patil, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Service R/o Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 6. Vishwas Ananda Patil, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Nil, resident of Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 7. Pandit Ananda Patil, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Exide Battery Ltd., Akurdi, Pune 8. Venubai Atmaram Patil, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Deour, Tal. : Sakri, Dist. : Dhule 9. Mirabai Sitaram Shinde, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o : Samode, Tal : Sakri, Dist. Dhule .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 17949 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2007 Sau. Anusayabai w/o Govind Kothawade and ors. .. Applicants VERSUS Ananda Deoram Patil died through LRs. and others .. Respondents (5) SA. 645.2007 Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants-applicants Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2,4,5,6,8 and 9 (Caveators) CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Both these second appeals can be disposed of by this common order:- . Both these appeals arose from common judgment delivered by the learned District Judge, Dhule in Civil Appeal nos. 6 of 1990 and 110 of 2000. The respondent filed Suit no. 24 of 1983 for specific performance of contract against the appellants' predecessor Govinda who had admittedly agreed to sell the house property at village Chadvel Korde, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule in 1982 and had admittedly received certain amount as earnest. Before the Suit could be filed for specific performance, Govinda’s wife and children i.e. the appellants here, issued a public notice, saying that the house property belonged to the joint family and since they did not consent for the agreement between the respondent Ananda and Govinda, they were opposed to the proposed sale. . In view of this, the respondent Ananda filed a Suit for specific performance. Govinda took (6) SA. 645.2007 up a defence that the property belonged to the joint family and since his wife and children were opposed to the transaction he would not execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the present appellants filed Suit no. 96 of 1986, seeking cancellation of the agreement for sale between respondent Ananda and deceased Govinda, contending that the house property was a joint family property. The trial Court recorded evidence in both these Suits simultaneously and held that the house property did not belong to the joint family but it was self-acquired property of the deceased Govinda. On the other hand, the trial Court also held that the respondent Ananda had proved his case and proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Court, thus decreed the suit (Suit no. 24 of 1983 filed by Ananda) and dismissed the suit (Suit no. 96 of 1986). . As against these two judgments, the present appellants filed two separate appeals. The learned District Judge, decided both the civil Appeals by the impugned common judgment. 2] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the learned District Judge, erred in using the evidence recorded in one Suit in deciding the other Suit and vice-versa. The second objection is that despite the pendency of the Suits, the appellants have spent sizable amount on (7) SA. 645.2007 development of the house property and this fact is required to be taken into account while deciding the Suit for specific performance. Both these objections, in my view, do not give raise to any substantial question of law. . The second line of argument, has no merits because the appellants for the first time, before this Court are trying to inform the Court that during the pendency of the suits and appeals, they had spent sizable amount on development of the suit house property. Nothing prevented them from raising such issue before the Courts below. . The third point raised by the appellants’ Advocate is again a factual aspect of the case. According to the appellants, deceased Govinda had sold certain ancestral property of village Virgaon in 1933. According to them, Govinda preserved the sale proceeds and in 1942, utilised them for purchase of the Suit house. The learned Judges of the lower Courts rejected this assertion and held that after 1933, Govinda was running a Kirana shop at village Chadvel Korde and from the earnings of such business he could purchase the Suit house in 1942. The question as to what was the source for funds utilised for construction of the suit house, was thus decided by the Courts below against the appellants. I do not find perversity in such finding. (8) SA. 645.2007 . The extraneous factual aspects of the case, thus cannot be heard in the second appeal. 3] Having gone through the impugned judgment, I do not find any improper appreciation of evidence recorded in one Appeal for deciding the other Appeal. The main controversy between the parties in both the appeals was whether the Suit house property belonged to the joint family or whether it was a self-acquired property of deceased Govinda? The Courts below concurrently found the evidence of the appellants in-sufficient, to draw conclusion in their favour. These concurrent findings on facts cannot be questioned in the Second Appeal, unless there is a gross perversity in appreciation of the evidence. 4] The second appeals, should therefore fail. Both the Second appeals stand dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Both the Second Appeals, Civil Application (St.) no. 17949 of 2009 in Second Appeal no. 645 of 2007, also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp