1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 677 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1765 OF 2008 Pandurang Gopal Mishal since deceased through Lrs. A. Smt. Premabai Pandurang since deceased through L.rs. Ramesh Pandurang Mishal & ors ........Appellants versus Mahadevo Soyaraba Mishal & ors........ Respondents. Mr. P.G. Karande for the Appellants Mr. Sudhir Prabhu for the respondent no.3-C. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Karande learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhu for the respondent. Predecessor in title of the appellant was the original defendant. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his ownership, and in the alternative for possession. The trial court dismissed the suit and therefore appeal came to be preferred before lower Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment and decree the appeal was allowed and respondent's suit cane to be decreed. 2. There is no dispute that the suit property was ancesstral property of the appellant and respondent. However 2 this property was sold out in court auction and same was purchased by one Mr.Alwe a relative of appellant and respondent. There is also no dispute that predecessor in title of the respondent/plaintiff purchased suit property from that relative, one Mr. Alwe. In my considered view when the suit property was auctioned, in court proceeding, it has lost the character of joint family property. Merely because the respondent/plaintiff purchased this property from relative Mr. Alwe, will not give right to the appellant/defendant to claim partition in the same. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that lower appellate court has correctly recorded the finding that the respondent/plaintiffs have proved their title. The appellant/defendants are admittedly staying there. However, long stay will not give any right to them to claim title. Lower appellate court also correctly held that the appllant/defendant are only occupier of some of the portion of the suit property. The lower appellate court recorded the finding after appreciating the evidence on record. No error is made out. Second appeal is devoid of any substance and therefore the same is dismissed. 3. At this stage Mr.Karande the learned counsel for the appellant seeks order of statusquo regarding possesison of the suit property for a period of eight weeks from today. Mr. Prabhu learned counsel for the respondent opposes the request. However in the interest of justice, coupled with the fact that the appellant/defendants are in possesion of some portion of the suit 3 property since long, I am of the oponion that statusquo regarding possession of the suit property for the period fo six weeks deserves to be granted. Same is accordingly granted. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)