JUDGMENT A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decreed dated 30.4.2005 passed by the 13th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.533/1993 filed by the appellant, dismissing the same and allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.122/1994 that was filed by respondent No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1993 passed by the 7th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.996/2977, the present appeal was filed. 2. In support of the present appeal, learned Counsel for appellants raised following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether decisions of the lower Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 64-A/56 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 241-A/59 would operate as res judicata to the present claim in the suit filed by the appellant though the appellant was not party to those civil proceedings ? (2) In the absence of evidence of the suit property being ancestral was it not wrong on the part of the first appellate Court to presume that the suit property was purchased from the funds of ancestral property ? (3) Whether right of defendant No.1 – Pandurang to claim share in the suit property was lost after a period of about 12 years in relation to the sale-deed executed by Kisan in favour of Khushal ? 3. Advocate Shri Somalwar for appellants contended that the appellant was not a party to the earlier civil proceedings which were decided and therefore, the first appellate Court could not have applied the principles of res judicata and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. He further argued that there is no presumption about purchase of suit property by Kisan from out of the funds of the ancestral property and it was wrong to assume that the property was not self acquired. He further argued that at any rate defendant No.1 - Pandurang had lost the share as admittedly he was not in possession of the suit property for over a period of 12 years. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the first appellate Court has considered all the above questions and have been decided upon careful scrutiny of the evidence and applicability of law. No interference is, therefore, called for in the present second appeal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at length. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the first appellate Court has considered all the above questions and have been decided upon careful scrutiny of the evidence and applicability of law. No interference is, therefore, called for in the present second appeal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at length. On the first question regarding res judicata that was raised there is no need for me to record separate reasons since the reasons furnished by the first appellate Court in paragraph No.28 are convincing and set out the correct position of law. I quote the relevant portion from the said paragraph hereunder . “ .......The issue regarding Kisan’s ownership had been in issue in the present suit of Shiocharan which has been directly in issue in the former suit filed by Khushal under whom the plaintiff Shiocharan is claiming his title. Therefore, the issue as to ownership having been finally and conclusively decided by a competent court in the former suit operates as res judicata. The plaintiff Shiocharan therefore, cannot reopen this issue to claim full and exclusive ownership over the suit property. He cannot get more than what his predecessor in title Kisan could have got. Kisan was held to be owner of only 1/4 share in the property and he was held to be entitled to sell only this much share to Khushal. There is no dispute that it is the same suit property which was involved in former litigations and all the parties were litigating under the same title.” 6. I have no hesitation in answering the first question that the suit was obviously hit by principles of res judicata. 7. Second question stands automatically answered in the negative since in the earlier suit it was decided that the property was ancestral property and Kisan had only limited share to the extent of 1/4th in the property and therefore, in my opinion, the said issue whether there is presumption about purchase of the property by Kisan from the funds received from the ancestral property does not arise. 8. Coming to the third question i.e. raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, I find that defendant No.1 – Pandurang had a right in the suit property and in fact his possession became adverse to Khushal from 5.6.1944. 8. Coming to the third question i.e. raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, I find that defendant No.1 – Pandurang had a right in the suit property and in fact his possession became adverse to Khushal from 5.6.1944. This was particularly because appellant Shiocharan and Yadav had claimed their title to the suit property but failed to seek partition since Khushal did not have full right to sell the property and his share was limited to 1/4th. There is no issue that defendant No.1 - Pandurang was out of possession for over a period of 12 years nor such theory was set up in the suit. Answer to question No.3, therefore, will have to be given in the negative. 9. For all these reasons, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.