1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 167 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2009 Shri Balkrushna Chahu Bhopi & ors. : Appellants versus Shri Chahu Dhau and ors. : Respondents. Shri Rajesh More for the Appellants. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 06, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 20th December 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel by which order the Application Exhibit 5 filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs came to be rejected. 2. The Plaintiffs have filed S.C.Suit No.131 of 2008 for 2 declaration, partition and separate possession. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they are the owners along with Defendant Nos.1 to 3 of the suit property admeasuring 40 R from Survey No.84/1C of village Shirdhon, Taluka Panvel. The said property, according to the Plaintiffs, is an ancestral property. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e the father and two uncles of the Plaintiffs, sold the suit property to the Defendant No.4 for consideration of Rs.Thirteen lakhs by a registered sale deed and handed over the possession of the suit property to the Defendant No.4. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the brothers of the Defendant No.1, have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant No.1. Pursuant to which the Defendant No.1 has sold the property to the Defendant No.4. 3. The Plaintiffs in the said suit filed an Application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction, restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 from dealing with, alienating etc of the suit property. The trial Court rejected the said Application Exhibit 5 by the impugned order. The trial Court accepted the case of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the said property has been alienated for the benefit of the joint family and, 3 therefore, for a legal necessity. The trial Court also observed that the said property has been sold at the market rate applicable and, since the Defendant No.4 has paid an amount of Rs.Thirteen Lakhs and has also been put in possession, the relief sought for by the Plaintiffs in the said Application Exhibit-5 could not be granted. The trail Court was of the view that the issue as regards whether there was a legal necessity or the issue as regards whether the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant No.1 could be tried at the time of trial. The case of the Defendant No.1 that he had sold only his share was not accepted by the trial Court and the trial Court recorded a finding that the entire land was sold. The trial Court ultimately observed that if the Plaintiffs are held to be entitled to their share, they can seek monetary compensation from their father i.e. the Defendant No.1. 4 4. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in its order dated 20th December 2008, in my view, the impugned order does not called for any interference at the hands of this Court. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.198 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]