SM 1 17.ao.958.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 958 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 958 OF 2011 Mr. Bababhai Peerbhai Chudersa ....Appellant. Versus Mr. Abubhai Peerbhai Chudersa and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Umesh K. Mali for the Appellant. Mr. Hira Gummala for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2011. P.C.: The appellant is taking exception to the order passed on 29th July, 2011 refusing to grant injunction in favour of the appellant while dealing with the Notice of Motion No. 1373 of 2011 in S. C. Suit No. 1165 of 2011. 2. The plaintiff claims that the defendant no. 1 had entered into an agreement and surrendered his 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and the plaintiff intends to develop the suit property. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are resisting action of the plaintiff as well as the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is the wife of the defendant no. 1 and she is not entitled for the share. The defendant no. 2 further contends that the property belonged to one Fatimabai @ Ashabai Peerbhai Chudesra and she had bequeathed the said property to the defendant no. 2 and the said property is recorded in her name. But the extracts of the property register filed at page 65, shows that the property belongs to one trust and the trust is SM 2 17.ao.958.11 managed by an Administrator. The plaintiff, however, has placed reliance on the agreement dated 13th September, 1982 and contended that the trust has also agreed for giving the property for development to the plaintiff. There is permission secured from the Charity Commissioner. It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the trust is a private trust and no such permission is necessary. 3. The Trial Court has observed that the property appears to be belonging to Fatimabai @ Ashabai Peerbhai Chudesra who is the grandmother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and the property being the ancestral property, the defendant no. 1 alone is not entitled to give the same for development purpose to the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant no. 2 that the property belongs to her need to be considered after recording of evidence by the Trial Court. No case is made out to cause interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 4. The Appeal from Order is devoid of any substance, and hence, dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the Appeal from Order, pending Civil Application does not survive, and the same stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)