1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR A.O.NO.31 OF 2011. Sanjay s/o Yadaorao Deshmukh and anr. ..vs.. Sau.Surekha Ashokro Deshmukh and ors. ..................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................... Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for the appellant. Mr.V.G.Wankhede, Adv. for resp.no.1 to 4. Mr.S.V.Ingle, Adv. for respondent no.5. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : MARCH 22, 2011. 1. This appeal-against-order is preferred by defendant nos.2 and 3, challenging the order dated 19/12/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Pusad allowing application (Exh.5) filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 – the original plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from transferring or alienating the suit land in any way or creating any third party right or interest therein or converting the suit land for non-agricultural purpose or making plots therein and selling the same to any person till disposal of the suit. 2 2. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff nos.1 to 4 are the daughters of deceased Dattrao. Name of Dattrao finds place in 7/12 extracts right from 2008 – 2009. The plaintiffs being the daughters of Dattrao are claiming 14 gunthas of land out of 28 gunthas. The Trial Court has also recorded the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right and interest in the suit property or that they are barred in any way from claiming their share in the suit property. It is informed by the learned counsel that a Special Civil Suit No.18 of 2008 for partition and separate possession of the 50% share in the suit property is already pending. The present suit is for setting aside or cancellation of sale-deed dated 21/8/2009. At the most the appellants/defendants no.1 and 2 shall step into the shoes of defendant no.5. However, unless there is a partition by metes and bounds, the parties cannot be permitted to alienate the suit property. In view of this, no fault can be found int the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE chute