1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8890 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 17652 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24/09/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present applicant has filed Suit for declaration, partition and possession that the sale deed executed in favour of non applicant no. 1 is illegal, null and void. The Suit of the plaintiff came to be partly decreed. So far as the relief regarding declaration of sale deed in favour of present non applicant no. 1 is concerned, the same was rejected. 2. The present applicant vide the present application seeks relief of injunction restraining non applicant no. 1 from disturbing his possession over property G.No. 638, so also, seeks injunction restraining non applicant no. 2 1 from alienating and creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. 3. Mr. Zarekar, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the sale deed executed in favour of present non applicant no. 1 is void ab-initio. In fact, no possession was handed over pursuant to the said sale deed and even as per the 7/12 extract, the present applicant is in joint possession along with other co-sharers. Even the electricity bills are in his name. He further submits that even if it is assumed that he is in possession, still as he is co- owner, non applicant no. 1 does not have any right to restrict the present applicant. 4. The decree is passed in favour of present non applicant no. 1. It has been held by the Court below that the present non applicant no. 1 is in possession of the suit property G.No. 638. It is also fairly conceded by Mr. Zarekar, the learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of the Suit, his application for temporary injunction restraining present non applicant no. 1 was also rejected. 3 5. In light of the same, at this stage, prima facie, it can not be said that the applicant is in possession or that non applicant no. 1 is not in possession of land G.No. 638. 6. In light of the above, the prayer clause ‘ B ’ in the present Civil Application is rejected. However, as the Appeal is admitted, it would be in fitness of things to safe-guard the property. As such, the non applicants are restrained from alienating, creating third party interest or changing the nature of the suit property land G.No. 638 in whatsoever manner. The present Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/CA 8890.10 in FAST 17652.10