1 AO NO.198/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 198 OF 2011 ,With CA/14289/2011 ,In AO/198/2011 Smt.Prabhawatibai w/o Sangram Nijwante ( Teli), age: 40 years, Occ. Household, r/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur, through her power of attorney, Kashinath s/o Gundappa Chande, Age: 78 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Tugaon, Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar. ...APPELLANT ORI.PLAINTIFF. VERSUS 1. Malikarjun s/o Bandappa Kasnale, Age: 57 years, Occ. Advocate and Agriculture, r/o Mahadeo Galli, Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. AND 14 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENTS (ORI.DEFENDANT) ... Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.J.R.Patil, Adv., for Respondent no.4. Mr. A.M.Gaikwad, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... 2 AO NO.198/2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard finally. 2. Rejection of Exh.5 and Exh.61 in Special Civil Suit No.51/2010 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, dated 18.8.2011, is questioned by the plaintiff as appellant. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that the sale deeds having day book No.3587/2010 dated 18/12/2010, day book No.3588/2010 dated 18/12/2010 and day book No.3607/2010 dated 20/12/2010 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of other defendants in respect of the suit property situate at Ahmedpur as and by way of power of attorney of plaintiff (posing to defendant no.1 to that effect) are unauthorized and for perpetual injunction. 4. In Exh.5 application, the plaintiff sought restraint against the defendants, his agents, servants, etc. from interfering, obstructing in peaceful possession of the suit property and to restrain them from recording the names of defendants on the basis of sale deeds in the revenue record. By Exh.61, the plaintiffs urged the learned Judge on 13.4.2011 that the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit properties or any part of it in favour of anybody 3 AO NO.198/2011 by any mode of transfer of property till final disposal of the suit. 5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the observation of the learned Judge in respect of status of Smt.Prabhawatibai to be the second wife and not entitled to enter into transaction is divorced from pleadings - he was not called upon to comment at the stage of deciding interlocutory applications. Learned Counsel submits, without any reason, the learned Judge has discussed provisions of Hindu Succession Act and caused prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff in the disputed properties. He reiterates, a simple prayer, which was limited in its nature, for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property should have been entertained on its own merits, considering the status of the plaintiff, and challenge to execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1. 6. Learned Judge, while entertaining both the applications has, indeed, exhaustively dealt with the status of the plaintiff Prabhawatibai vis-a-vis the earlier wife of Sangram, namely, Hirkanbai. Learned Judge has also discussed about Sangram performing second marriage with Prabhavatibai during lifetime of Hirkanbai and its legal implications. This Court, since it is 4 AO NO.198/2011 not a matter in issue, need not dwell on these observations of the learned Judge but, as the learned Judge confined to these observations while deciding interlocutory applications, it is clarified, the said observations made will be restricted to adjudication of Exh.5 and Exh.61, the same need not weigh during trial of the matter. 7. Now, turning to the points of balance of convenience, irreparable loss or the case for grant of injunction, the plaintiff does not dispute execution of the sale deeds, referred to above, through defendant no.1, by virtue of power of attorney dated 4.6.2010. The power of attorney which was in force enabled the defendant no.1 to enter into agreement and then execute the sale deeds, referred above. Cancellation of power of attorney by way of suit sought by the plaintiff is subsequently withdrawn. Consequently, the effect of power of attorney to be in force primarily remained alive enabling the power of attorney to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 7. 8. Defendants nos. 2 to 7 primarily have parted with the consideration, mutation is effected in their favour. The recitals in the sale deed also informs of the purchaser being put in possession of the property, I do not see any 5 AO NO.198/2011 reason to hold, the impugned order of the learned Judge, in rejecting Exh.5 or Exh.61, to be treated as incorrect. The learned Judge was seized with documents and factual position and, consequently, the order rejecting the injunction in terms of Exh.5 or Exh.61 does not call for any interference. The appeal does not project any substantial question of law to be formulated. Appeal From Order is rejected. No costs. Civil Application (No.14289/2011) disposed of. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/198-11ao