- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 280 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 330 OF 2009 Mrs. Kamal Dinkar Satav (since deceased, represented through LRs.) & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Dagdu Maruti Ghotkule & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. V. Govilkar, for the Appellants. Mr. S. P. Thorat, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 12. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JUNE 9, 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, rejecting the application for injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing with the property, partition whereof was sought during pendency of the suit. The appellants are either the female members of the family or persons claiming through female members, a share in the coparcenery property. This coparcenery property was partitioned by the defendants by a registered partition deed - 2 - dated 25th November 2004 i.e. before the date of amendment in the Hindu Succession Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since appellants have questioned the very partition dated 24th November 2004, the same could not have been relied upon by the learned Judge to hold that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief of injunction. 2. The learned counsel for respondents submits that even if it is accepted that appellants are entitled to challenge the partition deed dated 24th November 2004 by the suit, they would at the most become coparceners and entitled to a share in the property. This does not disentitle the Karta or other persons to deal with the property. All that the present appellants could claim is to have such transfers set aside by filing appropriate suit. In fact the respondents cannot be restrained from dealing with the property during pendency of the suit because no restriction can be put on the rights of one coparcener at the instance of another. In any case, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient to take care of the apprehensions of the appellants, and if any transfer indeed is effected by the respondents, the transferees would take the property subject to the decision of the suit. Therefore, since the learned Judge is right in refusing the injunction, the appeal is dismissed. - 3 - The learned Judge shall not be influenced by any of the observations of this Court in the present order. 3. In view of dismissal of the present appeal, Civil Application No. 330 of 2009 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]