spb/- 1 28-10-1258-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1258 OF 2010 WITH C.A. NO. 1554 OF 2010 IN A.O.NO.1258 /2010 ALONGWITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1259 OF 2010 WITH C.A. NO. 1555/2010 IN A.O. NO. 1259/2010 Shri Datta Shankar Pilake ... Appellant. Vs. Shri Nanasaheb Nivrutti Ghorpade & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. J. Shekhar i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the Appellant in both AOs. ----- CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 28TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who is original plaintiff. 2 Both the Appeals from Orders, involving the same question and same parties, may be decided by this common order. 3 The defendants/respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the owners of the suit property, bearing city survey no. 60, situate at Pantacha Goat, Satara. They have executed a sale deed of the said property in favour of the defendant/respondent no.1. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for spb/- 2 28-10-1258-10.sxw declaration that the sale deed is not binding on him and also for cancellation of the same. According to him there is an agreement for sale in his favour executed by the deceased -Bhagwantrao, original owner, and predecessor in title of the defendant nos. 2 to 4. By application Exh. 5, he sought temporary injunction, restraining the defendant no.1 from creating third party interest and by application Exh. 15, he sought to restrain defendant no.1 from carrying on any construction in the suit property. Both the applications were rejected and therefore, these two appeals. 4 Admittedly, the defendant nos. 2 to 4 were the owners of the suit property and they have executed sale deed of the same in favour of the defendant no.1. The possession is also given to the defendant no.1. Even though the plaintiff claims that Bhagwantrao, the predecessor of the defendant nos. 2 to 4, had executed an agreement in his favour, he has not filed any suit for specific performance of the contract. In such circumstances, in the suit filed by him only for cancellation of the sale deed, reliefs sought by him by applications Exhs. J and H cannot be granted. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 5 In the result, both the Appeals from Orders stand dismissed. The civil Applications therein also stand disposed of. [J.H. BHATIA, J.]