1 330.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 330 OF 2011 Vishal Ganesh Samant and another. ... Appellants. V/s. Kishori Ratnakar Walawalkar and others ... Respondents. P.R.Arjunwadkar for the appellants. A.J.Uniyal for the respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 27th September 2011. P.C. : The interim order passed by Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan on 27th January 2011 below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.53/2010 is subjected to challenge in this appeal from order. The relation between the parties is not disputed. The plaintiff, who is sister of the defendants claims her ¼th share in the suit property. It is also not disputed that part of the property is given for development to the third person and the suit is valued so far as the development value is concerned of three crore. There is also some undeveloped portion of the property which has remained in possession of the defendants. The suit presented by the plaintiff is for entitlement of ¼ th share. The trial Court on considering all relevant aspects passed an order of injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating the suit flats in building constructed on the developed portion and also from creating third party rights in relation to the 2 330.11-ao undeveloped property. It is not disputed that the developer has constructed a building on the part of the property and the same is occupied by some flat owners. It is the contention of the plaintiff that certain flats are kept with the developer and the defendants who are brothers of the plaintiff. The developer is stated to be the sun of another defendant who is brother of the plaintiff. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the plaintiff is claiming her entitlement not only in respect of undeveloped property but also claiming her share in respect of the receipts received by the defendants by entering into development agreement with the third party, it would be in the fitness of things to keep embargo on alienation of the flats which the defendant has received or likely to receive. It is contended that some flats are already sold before presentation of the suit. The order of injunction passed by the trial court shall not apply to the transactions which are already effected prior to presentation of the suit but shall operate in relation to the acts which are contemplated after presentation of the suit. It is further contended by the appellant that development of part of the property is completed and appurtenant area is required to be transfered in favour of the proposed society. The order of injunction passed by the trial Court will not come in the way of the defendant in transferring the appurtenant area to the proposed society. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Appeal from order is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal from order, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)