1 ao78.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 78 of 2011 WITH Civil Application No. 114 of 2011 Miss Shashikala Ranjitsingh ...Appellant v/s. Mr. Mahendrasingh Ranjitsingh & ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the appellant. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 03, 2011. P.C. By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 9th August, 2010 vide which the application filed by the present appellant for injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. The suit is resisted by the defendants 1-3. 2 ao78.11.sxw 3. In the suit, an application under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 for the relief as aforesaid was also filed. The same is also rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri Kanetkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present Appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed in considering the matter from correct perspective. He submits that at the end of the trial, if it is proved that the will is not genuine and in the meantime if the defendants disposed of the property, the suit itself would be rendered infructuous. 5. The learned trial Court upon the material placed on record found that property in question was the self acquired property of father Ranjitsingh Payal. It has been further observed that after execution of the will deed the said Ranjitsingh was alive for a period of three years. It has further been found that the said Ranjitsingh has also executed the gift-deed in favour of defendants 1-3 on 23rd August, 2005. In these circumstances, the learned Judge found that except the word of the plaintiff there was no prima-facie material to raise any doubt against the genuineness of will or deed. 3 ao78.11.sxw 6. The view taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be either perverse or impossible so as to warrant interference in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC. No case is made out for interference. Rejected. 7. In view of disposal of appeal from order, civil application no. 114/2011 does not survive for consideration. The same is disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)