IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2010 THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE GOA STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. HARIHAR BHUJLE AND 9 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. G. Nagvekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B. Sardessai holding Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent no.7. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 30th August, 2010 P.C. By this application applicant bank prays for an injunction restraining respondents ( including respondent no. 2 Original plaintiff) from selling the suit property. 2. The husband of respondent no. 2 was a guarantor for the loan advanced by the Bank. In pursuance of an Award obtained against principle debtor and the guarantor, the Bank sought to auction the suit property in question. Respondent no. 2 challenged the auction by filling a suit, inter alia contending that husband had no authority to mortgage the property as per Article 1119 of Portuguese Civil Code. According to her the husband was not competent to create any mortgage. Trial Court decreed the suit and set aside the auction. The present appeal has been filed in which application has been made to restrain the respondents from selling the property. 3. Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides that property of any kind can be transferred, except as otherwise provided by the Act or by any other law for time being in force. The respondent no. 2 has share in the property. She has not consented for the mortgage. In view of section 6 of Transfer of Property Act, she is entitled to transfer her share in the suit property, as prima facie nothing has been shown by the applicant as to how the said respondent is liable to pay the loan. 4. Consequently there cannot be an order restraining the respondent no.2 from transferring her share if she is so entitled in the suit property. Hence Civil Application is dismissed. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn