{1} ao811.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.8 OF 2011 Babu s/o Nivarti Panchal (Sonar) and others Appellants Versus Sulochanabai d/o Nivarti Sonar (Panchal) & others Respondents Mr.S.V.Warad, advocate for appellants. Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for respondents CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07 th April, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This Appeal from Order is directed against the order dated 19.10.2010, passed below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 184/2010 by the III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, 2 Appellants – original plaintiffs instituted suit seeking decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 20.10,2010 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. Plaintiffs are also seeking decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing interference in their peaceful possession over the suit land. 3 Defendant no.1 is the sister of plaintiffs, whereas, {2} ao811.odt defendant no.3 is their mother. Admittedly, the agricultural property belongs to defendant no.3, which is a “streedhan” property belonging to said defendant. It is alleged that defendant no.3 alienated the property in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. According to plaintiffs, there was earlier a family arrangement effected by defendant no.3 whereby the property has been allotted to the plaintiffs. It is, therefore, contended that they are entitled to possess the said property. 4 Defendants resisted the suit as well as application contending that defendant no.3, who is the owner of the property, is entitled to alienate the same and the alienation is effected in their favour and they have been put in possession over the property. Defendants also contend that consideration amount of Rs.2,30,000/- has been paid to defendant no.3. 5 Defendant no.3 has not appeared before the Court nor has denied receipt of consideration amount in respect of agricultural property sold in favour of other defendants. There are recitals in respect of delivery of possession of the property in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. The trial Court has expressed doubts as regards validity of the document executed in the nature of partition deed, which, according to the plaintiffs, is a family arrangement arrived at by defendant no.3. At this stage of the proceedings, defendants no.1 and 2 are purchasers of the property {3} ao811.odt for valuable consideration. There is no denial of the fact that defendant no.3 is not owner of the property nor there is denial of the fact by defendant no.3 that she has not received the amount of consideration. In these circumstances, the view adopted by the trial Court does not appear to be erroneous or irrational. No interference is called for in this appeal from order, which is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the trial Court in respect of grant of injunction. Appeal is devoid of substance. Appeal from Order stands dismissed. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/ao811