1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2010 [Laxman Ramaji Rangari & Ors. Vs. Nardas Ramaji Rangari & Ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri M. R. Kalar, Adv for appellant. Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, Adv for respondent. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 18 th JANUARY, 2011. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 553 of 2006 thereby confirming the decree passed by the trial Court on 28.06.2006 in Regular Civil Suit No. 562 of 2003. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact in respect of the plaintiffs entitlement to a share in the joint family property. Both the Courts below considering the earlier litigation initiated by the Appellant herein being Regular Civil Suit No. 1461 of 1983 which was a suit filed for injunction and declaration which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.12.1989, which decree of 2 dismissal was confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 594 of 1986 and thereafter confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 57 of 2002, as also the other attendant circumstances have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to make a submission in respect of the house property by contending that the plaintiff himself had filed suit being R. C. S. No. 466 of 1984 against the appellant herein who was defendant no.1 in the said suit, restraining him from demolition or construction on the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on 18.07.1986 on the ground that since demolition and new construction was already done, the suit was not maintainable. In my view, the said order would not aid the appellants in support of his contention that in so far as the said suit property is concerned it belongs to him. Alleged no objection granted by the respondent no.1 herein and the other family members for construction by the appellant on the suit property would also not dent the fact that the same is a joint family property. In my view in the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE 3 svk 4 5 6