1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.628 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.806 OF 2010 Sunil Bhimrao Gokhale ..Appellant V/s. Chandrakant Krishna Sapkal ..Respondents & ors Mr.R.S.Khadapkar, Advocate, for the Appellant None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2010 P.C. . This Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, rejecting the Appellant s Application for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from disturbing the Appellant s possession over the suit property as also to restrain the Defendants from creating any third party interest. 2 2. According to the Appellant, the Appellant entered into an Agreement to purchase the properties from Respondent No.1 on 18th July, 2008 and was placed in possession thereof. The vendor had also executed a General Power of Attorney and had also executed some receipts in favour of the Appellant. On the basis of the documents the Appellant claimed to have been in possession of the property, which the Respondent No.1 -Vendor sold to the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Out of them some properties were sold on 4th December, 2009 after the suit was filed on 19th November, 2009. The learned Trial Judge refused to grant injunction as prayed for and held that the Appellant had not made out any prima facie case and the Respondents would suffer if an injunction was granted. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the 3 Appellant wants to rely on the recitals in the Agreement to show that he had been placed in possession of the property. The Agreement ought to have been registered but it is not. There is no other evidence about the Appellant having been placed in possession of the property except some fencing receipts. 4. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Judge was right in holding that there was no question of protection of the imaginary possession of the Plaintiff. As far as prevention of creation of third party interest is concerned, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is enough to take care of Appellant's apprehension. 5. In view of this, no case for interference in the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge is made out. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4 6. In view of dismissal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)