1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.354 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1255 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO.784 OF 2003 ... Dilip Eknath Pandit ...Appellant v/s. Arvind Eknath Pandit and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.I.R.Kulkarni for the Appellant. Ms.S.R.Gudhka for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,JJ DATED: 14th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. By the order impugned in the Appeal, a statement made by the Second Defendant in 2 relation to the properties at Schedule A and Schedule B to the plaint has been recorded. The only grievance of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that no temporary injunction has been granted by the learned trial Judge in relation to the properties at Schedules B to G . 2. Admittedly, these properties stand in the name of the Defendant No.2 and his wife. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that those properties were purchased by the Defendant No.2 from the joint family funds. 3. Even according to averments in the plaint the only property of the family was the property at Schedule A , which appears to be a Lodging House. We do not find any averment in the plaint that the Defendant No. 3 2 was managing that Lodging House and was appropriating profits thereof. There is also no averment that the Defendant No.2 has sold any joint family property to purchase the properties at Schedules B to G . In our opinion, in the absence of such averments, there is nothing on record to assume that the properties at Schedule B to Schedule G have been purchased by the Defendant No.2 from the joint family funds. In our opinion, therefore, no exception can be taken to that part of the order of the learned single Judge which is impugned in the Appeal. Appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.P.SondurBaldota J.)