1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2001 1. Babu Nana Kadam, since deceased through his L.Rs. 1. Hausabai Baburao Kadam since deceased through her L.Rs. 1A. Bajirao Baburao Kadam & ors.........Appellants versus Ibrahim Hasan Mulani & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Appellants Mr. M.S. Bhandari for the respondents 1,2,4 & 5. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 18th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bodake learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bhandari for respondent nos. 1,2, 4 and 5. 2. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant. Respondent/plaintiff filed regular suit for redemption of mortgage and possession. By order dated 14th July 1977 this suit was dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff preferred a regular civil appeal no. 129/77 which was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 11-9-1979 by the learned Assistant Judge, Satara. In this appeal it was concluded that the respondent/plaintiff had 2 right to redeem the suit land on payment of Rs.400/-. However, the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide the issue relating to the tenancy of present appellants. After remand, the trial court referred the issue of the tenancy to competent authority and there is no dispute that the competent authorities have given the finding that the appellants are not tenants in the suit property. The trial court thereafter disposed of the suit thereby decree of redemption and possession has been passed in favour of the respsondent. The appellant being aggreived has filed regular Civil Appeal no. 279/97 before the lower Appellate Court. However the same was also dismissed. 3. The contention of the appellant, that they are tenants in relation to the suit property, is not accepted by the authorities under the Tenancy Act and same has become final. Now this issue cannot be agitated in the Civil Court. So far as redemption of the mortgage is concerned, that was also concluded in favour of the respondent/plaintiff way back in the year 1979 and this order was not challenged by the present appellants by filing separate proceeding. The appellants in the present Second Appeal cannot be allowed to challege judgment and decree of 1979 under which it is held that respondents/plaintiffs have right to redeem the mortgage. The lower courts below has approached the matter from correct point of view. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Appeal therefore is dismissed. 3 4. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)