1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.94/2010 Appellants :- 1. Smt. Meena w/o Premdas Yenurkar, aged about 30 years, Occ. : Household, R/o Hingna, Tehsil : Hingna, District : Nagpur. 2. Smt. Bharti w/o Rajesh Dahane, aged about 25 years, Occ.: Household, resident of Zingabai Takli, Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. Ravindra s/o Yadavrao Tidke, aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculture. 2. Prashant s/o Ravindra Tidke, aged about 28 years, Occ. : Business. Both (1) and (2) resident Sahuli, Zilla : Kalmeshwar, District : Nagpur. 3. Morsa Vinod s/o Sambashiva Rao, aged about : Major, Occ. : Service, r/o Plot No. F-13, Second Floor, Vijay Arcade, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri R.S. Akbani, Adv. for appellants] [Shri V.B. Palorkar, Adv. for respdt. Nos.1 & 2] [Shri M.M. Papinwar, Adv. for respdt. No.3] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 13.09.2010 This appeal against order is directed against an interlocutory order below Exh.5, made by the trial Court, rejecting application (Exh.5) for grant of injunction filed by the plaintiffs – appellants. 2 Heard. The document of agreement clearly shows receipt of amount of Rs.21,00,000/- each by appellant Nos.1 and 2. At this stage, it is not possible to accept the statement made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that these receipts as well as documents are all forged. Comparison of the signatures of the appellants on the other documents prima facie show to the contrary. Thereafter, the sale-deed was executed and the entire amount under the sale-deed was paid. The appellants are the daughters, who have filed the suit after the said transaction of transfer of property to respondent No.3 was completed and respondent No.1 and 2 being the father and brother of the appellants have obviously been supporting the appellants. Respondent No.3 - the purchaser having parted with such a huge amount of consideration of sale-deed cannot be allowed to be kept away from enjoying the property purchased by him by employing the legal process. Even if the plaintiffs' case is ultimately accepted, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to entire land and looking to the fact that the appellants have received huge amounts as is clear from the receipts, I do not think that the trial Court has made any error much less jurisdictional while balancing the equity, in refusing to exercise the discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction pending decision of the suit. In the result, I find no merit in the present appeal against order. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE SSW