1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.244 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3913 OF 2008 Bhagwan s/o Nagu Kanadje and others .. Appellants Versus Vinayak Mangalmurti Zhalte and others ..Respondents Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants Mr.S.M.Gunjal, Advocate holding for Mr.J.C.Badve, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Respondent No.3 dismissed as per Court’s order dated 5.4.2010 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 8th July 2010 PER COURT 1. This second appeal is filed against concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs. In their suit they said that they were protected tenants in respect of the suit land and that they are also in possession of the same. They said that as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act, they have preferential right to purchase the suit land in case the defendants – landlords intended to sell. On this cause of action, they sought perpetual injunction against the defendants – landlords not to alienate the suit land except to them. The respondents-defendants opposed the suit. On that count, they said that the appellants were never in possession of the suit land and had no concern to the suit land as tenants etc. They placed reliance on findings recorded in Suit No. 32/1973 which was a litigation between the same parties. Suit No. 32/1973 was filed by the respondents’ father against the present 2 appellants and their father. It was the case of the plaintiffs in that suit that they were in possession of the land and the present appellants and their father were trying to obstruct their user and cultivation and they wanted perpetual injunction. It seems the present appellants and their father took a stand that they were in possession as tenants. But, the Court in Suit No.32/1973 held that the appellants and their father failed in proving their concern to the suit land as tenants. The Court also held that they failed in proving their possession of the suit land. On recording such findings, the suit No.32/1973 was decreed as against the present appellants and their father. An appeal was filed against such judgment and decree by the present appellants and their father but that too failed. The findings, thus recorded in suit No.32/1973 attained finality. In the present suit also the main issues between the parties were (1) whether the appellants proved that they were in possession of the suit land; and (2) whether they proved that they were tenants or protected tenants in respect of the suit land. Both these issues were decided in the previously filed suit and so, this suit is clearly barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court below held so and I find no error in the said finding. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application No.3913 of 2008 also stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) (vvr/244.08sa)