1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2008 Vijay Baburao Patharkar .. Petitioner Versus Khadki Cantonment Board, Kirkee and others .. Respondents Shri N.D.Deshpande I/b Shri B. S. Khadapkar, for the petitioner Mr. N.V. Masurkar, for respondent No.1, Shri A.A. Garge, for Respondent No.2 CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 29th April, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed against the order dated 22.6.2008 below Exh.C-5 in Reg. Citil Suit No. 1419 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune and the order dated 18.7.2008 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 305 of 2007 passed by the District Judge, rejecting the application for interim relief of the petitioner and dismissing the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is original plaintiff has field suit for injunction against the respondents from transferring the tenancy rights or 2 restraining the respondents from selling out and or creating any third party interest in the said suit property. 3. The suit is based on the right in the property as claimed on the basis of the will of the grand father of the petitioner. Deed of family arrangement has taken place subsequent to the will of his grand father. Except, respondent no.1, the petitioner and other respondents are the family members. According to the petitioner he is having equal to ½ share in the suit property, on the basis of subsequent document of family arrangement. The application for eviction was rejected by the Trial Court and the Appeal against it is also dismissed by the Appellate Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has accepted the contentions of the petitioner in respect of the existence of document of family arrangement and release deed. If it is so, then on the basis of the facts which were established by the petitioner, his prayer of injunction ought to have been granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the will is disputed and if the respondents are placing reliance on it, they could have obtained probate and could have proved the will. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have not disputed the will, however, main ground for objection is that as the petitioner is claiming substantive relief for declaration of either about his right or about the will, the injunction simplicitor cannot be granted. 3 8. The Learned Trial Court though has held certain facts and circumstances in favour of the petitioner and had accepted those facts. However, the findings given by the learned District Judge that such similicitor injunction without claiming substantive relief for declaration of either his right or about the will is legal and correct. Further, the learned District Judge has also considered that the petitioner has slumber over the right if any for the purpose of entering his name in the records of right and has not taken any effective steps. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order as there is no merit. As such, the present petition is dismissed. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-