FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 557 OF 2008. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 557 OF 2008. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 557 OF 2008. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.641 of 2008. CIVIL APPLICATION No.641 of 2008. CIVIL APPLICATION No.641 of 2008. Smt. Sulochana Madhavrao @ Mahadeo Rakavi & Others. .. .. Appellants. Vs. Ramakant Mahadeo Kadam & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr G. S. Godbole with Ms Pallavi N. D., Advocate for the Appellants. Mr K. S. Dewal, Advocate for Respondent No.6. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 15.07.2008. DATED: 15.07.2008. DATED: 15.07.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused record. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.493 of 2007 rejecting application for temporary injunction. 3. The factual backdrop drawn in the order appearing in paras 2 and 3 of the order is not in dispute. The facts borrowed from the said paragraphs clearly reveal that the present appellants-plaintiffs are claiming through one Madhavrao @ Mahadeo Narayan Rakavi, who passed away on 21.3.1976. The plot of land which is the subject-matter of the suit has been purchased by Mahadeorao Shripat Kadam and other members of the family on 28.11.1960 to which Mahadeo, through whom the present appellants-plaintiffs are claiming, is not a party. After purchase of the property on 28.11.1960, it was mutated in the name of purchasers. When the sale deed was executed, Madhavrao @ Mahadeo was alive, almost for a period of 17 years and after execution of the sale deed, during his life time, he did not challenge the said sale deed practically for a period of 47 years from the date of purchase of the suit property by the defendants. The present suit has been filed, claiming 1/7th share in the suit property and interim injunction, restraining the defendants from the development of suit property, is prayed for. 4. It is, no doubt, true that observations made by the lower Court in the impugned order, prima facie, leads to an inference that the appellants-plaintiffs may be having 1/7th share in the suit property but the injunction was denied on the ground, considering the delay and acquiescence on the part of the appellants-plaintiffs. The factual backdrop clearly reveals that past 47 years, the suit property is held by the respondents-defendants as their own property without any obstruction from anybody. The proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were initiated, and, ultimately, the respondents-defendants were treated as an owner of the suit property. 5. The delay in filing the suit, disentitles the appellants, as rightly denied by the Court below, the order of interim injunction. There is no, prima facie, case made out by the appellants, nor balance of convenience is established. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.641 of 2008 does not survive, the same is disposed of accordingly. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)