1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.856 OF 2008. Dnyandeo Namdeo Karjule and others ... Appellants. Versus Vinayak Dnyandeo Karjule and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the appellants. Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The appellants are original defendants and are father and brothers of the Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No.1). The suit of the Respondent for injunction simpliciter came to be decreed. The appellate Court also confirmed the said 2 decree. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the judgments of both the Courts, I am of the opinion that the following substantial questions of law are involved : (i) Whether the suit land bearing Gat No.155/1 could be regarded as self- acquired property of the Respondent No. 1 only because the sale deed stands in his name notwithstanding the fact that he was minor at the relevant time and that the sale transaction took place after the compromise decree in RCS No. 207/1979.? (ii) Whether injunction could be issued against the co-sharers/owners if land Gat No.155/1 is not exclusively owned by the Respondent No.1.?" 3. Admit. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa85608 3