1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2008 Rakhamabai Mhasu Hyalij & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Suman Ramdas Chavan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Mr. Jayesh B. Kocheta for the appellants. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the respondents. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 6th October, 2009. P.C. 01. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 02. Deceased Mhasu had executed a Will bequething the suit land Gat No. 114 admeasuring 2 hectares situated at Dabali in favour of the plaintiffs who are daughters of said Mhasu from his first wife. He made an agreement with defendant No.1 Rakhmabai in anticipation of second marriage with her and to make provision for her maintenance during his own life and after his death, he gave her two acres land out of suit land Gat No.114. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 301 of 1992 for possession of the agricultural land as his property. The suit in respect of land was decreed by the Trial Court. In the appeal filed by the defendant, the decree in respect of suit land was modified and two acres land which was given to defendant No.1 Rakhmabai was 2 excluded from the decree of possession and it was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of only remaining three acres of land on the basis of the Will. The Second Appeal is filed by the defendants contending that the suit itself is not tenable because the previous suit was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh suit. 03. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. First Appellate Court, in para 23 of the judgment has clearly pointed out that, in the earlier suit the plaintiffs had prayed injunction on the ground that they were in possession but according to them pending the said suit they were dispossessed and therefore after withdrawing the suit, they filed fresh suit for possession based on the Will. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, not question of law is involved in this appeal. 04. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)