1 S.A. 586 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2010 Maruti S/o Gangaram Shelke & another Appellants V E R S U S Rama S/o Saluji Shelke (died) through his L.Rs Respondents Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellants CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same is also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have not properly construed the pleadings in the present suit. The Courts have delivered the judgment on the basis of pleadings in earlier suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1980. In fact for deciding the present suit the pleadings and evidence as is led in the present suit should have considered. It is further contended 2 S.A. 586 of 2010 by the learned counsel that Rama at no point of time had denied the rights of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the question of limitation does not arise. After the death of Ganpati joint application was given by Ganraram and Rama for mutating their names in respect of the property left by Ganpati who died issue less. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the judgment. Ganpati died in the year 1966, thereafter the plaintiffs have filed suit Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1980, for possession. The said suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. The appellate Court held that suit is barred under Section 109 of the Limitation Act. The present suit is filed subsequently i.e. in the year 1987. The pleadings in the present suit are totally contrary to the pleadings in the earlier suit. When the relief was negatived in the earlier suit, the plaintiff could not have claimed the similar relief in another suit though in the different form. The plaintiff themselves had contended in the earlier suit that after the death of Ganpati, partition was effected between Rama and Gangaram, when that was the case of the plaintiffs earlier. Now they cannot turnaround and claim otherwise. 4. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence and the previous 3 S.A. 586 of 2010 pleadings have came at possible and plausible conclusion. Second Appeal cannot be entertained only on the ground that some other view is also possible. In the light of the same, Second Appeal being sans substantial questions of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*36.07SA/090311