1803sa81.09.sxw 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2009 Nadeem Aara wd/o Sk. Ayyub & another – Appellants - Versus- Smt. Sughrabi wd/o Sk. Rasool & others – Respondents Shri Mohd, Ateeque, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R. D. Wakode, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J . DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2009. P. C. : 1. The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed suit simplicitor for permanent injunction and both the Courts found that after death of Sheikh Ayub i. e. husband of appellant No. 1, his mother i. e. defendant No. 1 became one of the co-owners and it was also noticed that after his death, the property was given on Batai basis for cultivation to Ayub's father. In these circumstances, as injunction could not have been given against another co-owners, the suit has been dismissed. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants tried to contend that in notice issued in 2004 for cancellation of gift deed, possession was 1803sa81.09.sxw 2/2 demanded back from the plaintiff. However, it has come on record that for cancellation of gift deed, separate suit is pending between the parties and the trial Court here has correctly recorded that cancellation of gift deed and question of injunction were two unrelated and independent issues. It is apparent that the lower appellate Court has relied upon the cross examination of appellant No. 1 to find that her father-in-law i. e. husband of defendant No. 1 was cultivating the suit land on Batai basis. 3. In view of this position, it is apparent that after the death of Sheikh Ayub, his widow i. e. appellant No. 1, his son i. e. appellant No. 2 and his mother i. e. respondent No. 1 all have become co-owners. The Courts below have, therefore, correctly refused to grant injunction. The Courts have also made it clear that suit in relation to cancellation of gift deed will be independently decided. I, therefore, find no substantial question of law is raised in this appeal, the same is therefore dismissed. However, it is made clear that the suit in relation to cancellation of gift deed pending between the parties shall be decided on its own merits by the concerned Court. JUDGE wwl