kbp 1 5611-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5611 OF 2009 Naravir Sitaram Deshmukh ..Petitioner Vs. Waman Shankar Suryarao and ors. ..Respondents ....... Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, for petitioner. Mr.J.M.Puranik, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] The petitioner is the second plaintiff. The petitioner along with the third and fourth respondents herein filed a suit claiming one half undivided share in the suit land. The suit is for partition and separate possession. In the suit, the plaintiffs contended that the property was owned by one Narmadabai who was survived by two daughters Shantabai and Sundarabai and that the first and second respondents are the sons of Sundarabai and the plaintiffs are the daughters and son respectively of Shantabai. The petitioner claims to be a son of Shantabai. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. It was contended in the reply filed by the respondents that the said Narmadabai kbp 2 5611-09.sxw had no blood relationship either with the petitioner or the respondents. It was contended that the name of mother of petitioner was Shantabai Sitaram Deshmukh who had nothing to do with Narmadabai. The trial court granted temporary injunction restraining the first and second respondents from creating third party rights. In appeal preferred by the respondents, the appellate court has interfered and has set aside the order of temporary injunction. The order of the Appellate Court has been impugned by the petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even the respondents are claiming to be the sons of a daughter of Narmadabai as is evidenced by Mutation Entry no.793. He submitted that even according to the respondents, their mother and the mother of the petitioner were real sisters. He, therefore, submitted that considering the case of respondents, even the petitioners have an undivided share in the suit property, and therefore, the trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction. 3] I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner is claiming title on the footing that he is the grandson of Narmadabai who was owner of the suit property. Even in this writ petition, a case is made out that Narmadabai was the mother of Sundarabai and Shantabai. Unless the petitioner proves he was a grandchild of Narmadabai, he cannot succeed in the suit. The Appellae Court observed that the names of the first and second respondents (defendants) were kbp 3 5611-09.sxw entered in revenue records in the year 1976 and the petitioner and other plaintiffs have slept over for a period of 30 days. The Appellate Court further observed that even according to the case of the petitioner, the first and second respondents were the co-owners. Thus, the Appellate Court has denied discretionary relief of temporary injunction to the petitioner. There is no error in the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court. 4] The suit is pending. Therefore, all transactions entered into by the defendants will be naturally subject to final outcome of the suit. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. While deciding the suit, the trial court shall not be influenced by the tentative observations made by the appellate court. ( A.S.OKA, J. )