1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.401 OF 2007 Smt. Putlabai Ganu Jagdale ..Appellant V/s. Nagesh Bapu Jagdale & ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.J.Chougule for the appellant Mr.Anilkumar K.Patil for respondent nos.1,2,3,5&6 CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 25th June, 2008 P.C. . This is a second appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 29-11-2002 passed by District Judge, Sangli whereby it has been declared that respondents-original plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land described in para-1 of the plaint and directed the appellant- original defendant to hand over the possession of the suit land by reversing the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court dated 21-3-1996 whereby the respondents-plaintiffs suit was dismissed. 2. Admittedly, there was proceeding initiated by the original plaintiffs/respondents against the appellant which ultimately culminated into a decree by the Lower Appellate Court i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No. 437/1985 2 and which was later on confirmed by the High Court in second appeal that resulted into confirmation of title over the property in question. However, liberty was granted to the original plaintiffs/respondents to take possession of the land by following the due procedure of law as the appellant has been in possession of the property since more than 50 years. Based upon the said liberty, the respondents/original plaintiffs filed the present Suit which culminated into a decree for possession with re-enforcement of the title. In this background there is no question of going into the issue about the title of the property. As liberty was granted and appellant-original defendant filed the Suit for possession, there is no question of re-agitating the issue about title of ownership of the land in question based upon Section 22 and 24 of the Consolidation Act, 1947. The remedy of the appellant lies somewhere else. There is nothing on record to show that any challenge was made of such type based upon the same in any other proceedings except present one. Once the Civil Court, for the same property between the same parties, has considered the material and decided the issue basically of title of ownership by plaintiff and that has attained finality, there is no question of re-opening the said issue in the facts and circumstances of the case. The findings,therefore, given by the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit 3 land and is entitled to declaration and possession as prayed, need no interference. 3. The Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]