IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 97 OF 2008 RAMDAS KASHINATH POKLE ALIAS BARAINA CAXINATA NAIQUE AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus M/S. DHEMPO SHIP BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. AND 21 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 24th April, 2009 P.C. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The real contesting respondent is respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 and 20 had been served notices. The appellants who are the plaintiffs in the suit sued upon the case that they owned, enjoyed and possessed "common property" described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The property was recorded in the name of the defendant no.2 who is the plaintiffs' mother. Upon a case of ownership of the mother, the plaintiffs sought interim injunction which has been refused. The defendant no.2, mother of the plaintiffs purchased the suit property on 01.02.1990 from one Chandrashekar Gaunekar and his wife. The sale deed showed that the defendant no.2, the plaintiffs' mother who was shown as the purchaser was purchasing the property known as 'Natem' upon which is existing a hut and a mundkarial house of the purchaser. 3. The plaintiffs did not sue as one of the mundkars. The plaintiffs sued upon the title of their mother and applied for interim injunction. In the written statement filed by the mother of the plaintiffs and two of the brothers, it was stated that the plaintiffs' father died without leaving behind any assets and he plaintiffs did not give any assistance to the plaintiffs' mother at the time of the death of the father. The defendants took up certain responsibilities and obtained loans and contributed to the purchase of the property. They constructed separate houses in 1992. They denied plaintiffs' right in the suit property. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs, it was the plaintiffs' case that the plaintiffs contributed to the purchase of the property and the plaintiff no.1 and 2 were already residing in the house. That has been a completely new case. That case was not the plaint. Even the reason to purchase the property by the plaintiffs when they did not reside in the suit property and when the defendant no.2 to 22 resided cannot be explained. 4. Since other siblings have contributed for the purchase of the suit property, they have been the confirming parties in the sale deed. The learned Judge observed that if the plaintiffs showed title, right and interest, they could be compensated in terms of money. The order is correct. Appeal from Order is dismissed. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.