1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6267 OF 2008 Bibhishan Baburao Karande and others Petitioners versus The Collector, Solapur and others Respondents A.B.Tajane for petitioners. A.G.Kulkarni for respondents 1 to 3 and 8. A.P.Vanarase, AGP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendant nos.8 and 9 who have been injuncted by the District Court from cultivating the suit property till disposal of the suit. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs. They filed a suit for enforcement of right of preemption as regards the cultivation of the suit property. The petitioner no.1 (defendant no.8) is claiming the suit property on the basis of sale deeds executed in his favour by defendant no.4, 6 and 7. The petitioner no.2 (defendant no.9) is claiming on the basis of the sale deed executed by the defendant nos.6 and 7. The sale deeds recite that the petitioners have been placed in possession of the area sold under the sale deeds. The plaintiffs and the defendant nos.4,6 and 7 had undivided shares in the suit property. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale deeds under which they have purchased the property give description of the area with boundaries and 2 record that the petitioners were placed in possession. Moreover, the revenue record is in their favour. 2. The finding of the Appellate Court is that defendant nos.4, 6 and 7 had a right to sell their undivided shares. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that at highest it can be said that the said defendants have sold their undivided shares to the petitioners and in absence of partition of the shares, the petitioners could not have claimed to be in possession in any particular portion of the property. The petitioners who are strangers have purportedly purchased the undivided shares of members of Hindu Undivided family. 3. Considering these aspects, the order of temporary injunction has been passed. It is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by the Appellate Court and confirmation thereof will not come in way of the Trial Court in deciding the suit on its own merits. The Trial Court will not be influenced by the said observations and will decide the suit on its own merits. Hearing of the suit is expedited. 4. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, ad-interim relief granted on 24th September 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)