1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1226 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1497 OF 2008 Murlidhar Bhikoba Dangat ..Appellant V/s Bhalchandra Rajaram Dhone & anr. ..Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1227 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1498 OF 2008 Murlidhar Bhikoba Dangat ..Appellant V/s Sangram Bhalchandra Dhone & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Sumit Khaire & Mr.R.M.Haridas, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Surel S. Shah, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . The appellant/plaintiff has filed the above appeals impugning the order dted 16th October, 2008, passed on Exh.5 i.e.the applications for temporary injunction filed by him in Special Civil Suit 2 No.1282/07 and Special Civil Suit No.1283/07. 2. The subject matter of the two suits is land bearing Survey No.81/6. The said land in the industrial zone was originally the ancestral land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had two brothers namely Trimbak and Gangaram. It appears that Gangaram died issueless whereas Trimbak has one son Kailash, who in turn has a son by the name Sachin. The plaintiff in the said suits has challenged the two Sale Deeds dated 14th September, 2006, executed by Kailash and Sachin in respect of the 1/3rd share of Gangaram and Trimbak. It is the case of the defendants that Sachin has been adopted by Gangaram and therefore, he has sold the share of Gangaram. 3. The plaintiff in the said suits filed application Exh.5 for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that an oral partition had taken place between him and his brothers by virtue of which the entire land in the said SurveyNo.81/6 3 admeasuring 2H 54R has come to his share. The case of the plaintiff for temporary injunction was considered by the Trial Court and by the impuged order, the applications Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff came to be rejected. The Trial Court taking into consideration the documentary evidence wherein it was mentioned that the plaitniff had sold his 1/3rd share admeasruing 81R to ten different persons in small pieces and in each of the Sale Deed it was mentioned that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share out of the total land admeasuring 2H & 54R. Taking the said fact into consideration the Trial Court was of the view that since it is the plaintiff's own case in the Sale Deeds executed by him in favour of ten different persons wherein it is mentioned that he has 1/3rd share, the plaintiff could not have a claim over the remainder of the said Survey Number. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff reliance is sought to be placed on the 7/12 extract wherein in the cultivation column, the name of the plaitniff appears. The said evidence has also been dealt with by the Trial Court. The Trial Court in view of the fact that the land in question 4 being in the industrial zone, the said 7/12 extracts are of no avail and in fact falsifiys the case of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that except the 7/12 extracts wherein the plaintiff's name is mentioned in the cultivation column, the plaintiff has produced no other material on record. The finding of the trial Court in respect of the possession therefore cannot be faulted with. 5. Having considered the impuged order and the reasons recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph 12 of the impuged order, in my view, the said reasons for refusal of the grant of the temporary injunction call for no interference. Both the Appeal from Orders are accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal from Orders, the Civil Applications do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of as such. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) 5