1 AO No.785/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.785 of 2010 Prabhakar Eknath Sonawane & Anr ... Appellants versus Smt.Babibai Trimbak Bhagare & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr Anilkumar Patil for the appellants CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 7th December 2010 P.C. 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 3 May 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Niphad dismissing the appellant’s application for interim injunction. 2. The suit relates to a property which consists of a bungalow constructed on a plot of land belonging to respondent no.5 society. According to the appellants, the leasehold/occupancy rights in the plot and ownership rights in the bungalow belongs to Eknath Sonawane, father of appellant no.1. The respondent no.1 on the other hand claims to be the owner of the leasehold/occupancy 2 AO No.785/10 rights of the land and the bungalow i.e the suit property. Since the title of the appellants was disputed by respondent no.1 the applicants filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.43 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Niphad for a declaration that the suit property belonged to Eknath Sonawane and after him belongs to appellants by way of inheritance. They further claimed a declaration that the agreement for sale executed by the respondent no.1 in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3 on 23rd March 2010 was illegal and not binding on their share. In the pending suit they also made an application for interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from transferring the suit property to respondent nos.2 or 3 or to anybody else. The trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application for interim injunction. Aggrieved appellants are in appeal. 3. The question whether the appellants or respondent no.1 are the owners of the suit property is a disputed question of fact. While the appellants claim that they are the owners, the respondent no.1 claims the ownership of the suit property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application for interim injunction. For if ultimately the suit is dismissed and respondent no.1 is held to be the owner of the property, the injunction would have caused him an irreparable injury and loss to her. For all, we know the value of the property may diminish over time and by the said diminution the respondent no.1 would suffer a loss. On the 3 AO No.785/10 other hand, if the applicants succeed in the suit, no loss would be caused to them because any transfer of the property made by the respondent no.1 during the pendency of the suit would be hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants can also register a notice of lis pendence to protect their interest. The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the respondent no.1. In view thereof, no exception can be taken to the order of the trial Court restraining the application for interim injunction. 4. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)