1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NOS. 82 OF 2006 AND 88 OF 2006. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.82 OF 2006. 1. Smt.Facrunnissa Bi alias Coirunnissab, w/o. Late Sri Shaikh Shariff, house wife, age 75 years. 2. Shri Shaikh Anis alias Xec Hanis, s/o.late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 44 years, married, businessman, 3. Smt. Rizwana Bi, w/o. Shaikh Anis, married age 34 years, housewife, 4. Shri Shaikh Sajjad alias Xec Sajjad, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 42 years, married, businessman 5. Smt. Roshan Bi, w/o.Shri Shaikh Sajjad, age 40 years, housewife, 6. Shri Shaikh Xabir alias Shaikh Shabir, s/o late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 35 years,married, service at Middle East, 7. Smt. Asma Bi Lammtur Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Xabir alias Shaikh Shabir, age 28 years, housewife. 2 8. Shri Shaikh Zabir alias Xeque Zabir, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 38 years, married, service at Middle East, 9. Smt. Amina Shaikh, w/o. Shri. Shaikh Zabir, age 30 years, housewife, All are r/o H.No.97, opposite Jama Masjid, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. 10. Smt. Nazir Actar, d/o.late Shri Shaikh Shariff, w/o. Shri Tahir Khan, age 50 years, married, housewife, 11. Shri. Tahir Khan, S/o. Shri Kudratulla Khan, age 58 years, married, Both are r/o. Daka Colony, Andheri (West), Mumbai. 12. Smt. Munira Bi, d/o. Late Shri Shaikh Shariff, w/o. Shri Mohammad Mulla Saliam Muzawar, age 49 years, married, housewife, 13. Shri Mahammad Mulla Saliam Muzawar, s/o.late Shri Mulla Mohammad Hussain Muzawar, age 53 years, married, Both are r/o. Kurti, Ponda Goa. 14. Smt. Moimuna Bi alias Smt.Shaikh Maimuna Bi, w/o. Late Shri Xec Ismal alias Sheikh Ismail, age 76 years, widow, housewife, 3 15. Shri Xec Mamod Ali alias Shaikh Mahamad Ali, s/o. late Shaikh Ismail, age56 years, married, service. 16. Xec Abdul Majid alias Shaikh Abdul Majid, s/o. late Shaikh Ismail, age 53 years,married, service. 17. Smt.Surena Begum alias Smt.Shaikh Surena Majid, w/o.Shri Xec Abdul Majid alias Shaikh Abdul Majid, age 40 years, married, housewife, All are r/o.H.No.168,W.No.10, Near Jama Masjid Behind City Hall, Valpoi, Sattari,Goa. 18. Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Karim, age 66 years, married, business, 19. Smt. Faizunnissa Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak, age 62 years, married, housewife, Both are r/o. H.No.45, Opposite Govt.Primary School, Nanuz, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. 20. Shri Shaikh Naruddin alias Xec Norodino, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Daud, age 67 years, married, retired, 21. Smt. Bhadrunnissan Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Naruddin alias Xec Norodino, age 65years, married, house wfie, Both are r/o. H.No.1, Thane ... Appellants road, Valpoi, Sattari, Goa. (Orig.Defendant Nos. 2 to 22) 4 Versus 1. Mrs. Mumtaz Bi, w/o. Shaikh Bilal, aged 40 years, service, presently residing at W.No.9, (Original Plaintiff) Mauxi road, Near Valpoi Municipal Ground, Valpoi, Sattari,Goa. 2. Mr. Shaikh Bilal alias Xex Bilal, s/o.late Shri Shaikh Shairiff, married, age 40 years,businessman, (Orig. Defendant No.1) r/o. H.No.97, opposite Jama Masjid, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. .. Respondents Mr. S. Vehidulla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Shirodkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. I. Aga, Advocate for the respondent No.2. AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.88 OF 2006. Mr. Shaikh Bilal alias Xex Bilal, s/o.late Shri Shaikh Shairiff, married, age 40 years,businessman, r/o. H.No.97, opposite Jama Masjid, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. .. Appellant. Versus 1. Mrs. Mumtaz Bi, w/o. Shaikh Bilal, aged 45 years, service, 5 presently residing at W.No.9, (Original Plaintiff) Mauxi road, Near Valpoi Municipal Ground, Valpoi, Sattari,Goa. 2. Smt.Facrunnissa Bi alias Coirunnissab, w/o. Late Sri Shaikh Shariff, house wife, age 75 years. 3. Shri Shaikh Anis alias Xec Hanis, s/o.late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 44 years, married, businessman, 4. Smt. Rizwana Bi, w/o. Shaikh Anis, married age 34 years, housewife, 5. Shri Shaikh Sajjad alias Xec Sajjad, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 42 years, married, businessman 6. Smt. Roshan Bi, w/o.Shri Shaikh Sajjad, age 40 years, housewife, 7. Shri Shaikh Xabir alias Shaikh Shabir, s/o late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 35 years,married, service at Middle East, 8. Smt. Asma Bi Lammtur Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Xabir alias Shaikh Shabir, age 28 years, housewife. 9. Shri Shaikh Zabir alias Xeque Zabir, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Shariff, age 38 years, married, service at Middle East, 6 10. Smt. Amina Shaikh, w/o. Shri. Shaikh Zabir, age 30 years, housewife, All are r/o H.No.97, opposite Jama Masjid, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. 11. Smt. Nazir Actar, d/o.late Shri Shaikh Shariff, w/o. Shri Tahir Khan, age 50 years, married, housewife, 12. Shri. Tahir Khan, S/o. Shri Kudratulla Khan, age 58 years, married, Both are r/o. Daka Colony, Andheri (West), Mumbai. 13. Smt. Munira Bi, d/o. Late Shri Shaikh Shariff, w/o. Shri Mohammad Mulla Saliam Muzawar, age 49 years, married, housewife, 14. Shri Mahammad Mulla Saliam Muzawar, s/o.late Shri Mulla Mohammad Hussain Muzawar, age 53 years, married, Both are r/o. Kurti, Ponda Goa. 15. Smt. Moimuna Bi alias Smt.Shaikh Maimuna Bi, w/o. Late Shri Xec Ismal alias Sheikh Ismail, age 76 years, widow, housewife, 16. Shri Xec Mamod Ali alias Shaikh Mahamad Ali, s/o. late Shaikh Ismail, age56 years, married, service. 7 17. Xec Abdul Majid alias Shaikh Abdul Majid, s/o. late Shaikh Ismail, age 53 years,married, service. 18. Smt.Surena Begum alias Smt.Shaikh Surena Majid, w/o.Shri Xec Abdul Majid alias Shaikh Abdul Majid, age 40 years, married, housewife, All are r/o.H.No.168,W.No.10, Near Jama Masjid Behind City Hall, Valpoi, Sattari,Goa. 19. Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Karim, age 66 years, married, business, 20. Smt. Faizunnissa Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak, age 62 years, married, housewife, Both are r/o. H.No.45, Opposite Govt.Primary School, Nanuz, Valpoi, Sattari-Goa. 21. Shri Shaikh Naruddin alias Xec Norodino, s/o. late Shri Shaikh Daud, age 67 years, married, retired, 22. Smt. Bhadrunnissan Bi, w/o. Shri Shaikh Naruddin alias Xec Norodino, age 65years, married, house wfie, Both are r/o. H.No.1, Thane ... Respondents road, Valpoi, Sattari, Goa. Mr. I Aga, Advocate for the appellant. 8 Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. S. Vehidulla, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 22. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 14 th October, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Vehidulla, learned Counsel for the appellants in A.O. 82/2006 / respondent Nos. 2 to 22 in A.O. 88/2006, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. P. Lotlikar and Nilesh Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in A.O.82 and 88 of 2006 and Mr. I. Aga, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 in A.O. 82/2006 / appellant in A.O. 88/2006. 2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by common order since they arise out of order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Devision, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit No.41/2006/A allowing the application for injunction dated 30/8/2006 filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants etc. from interfering in any manner with the suit properties and from carrying out any transaction of sale in respect of the suit properties. 9 3. The respondent No.1 in A.O.82/2006, is the plaintiff and the appellants and respondent No.2 in A.O. 82/2006 are defendants in the suit. The respondent No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed above suit seeking relief of permanent injunction and declaration in respect of the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the partition deed dated 13.1.2006 executed by the defendants, is null and void and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, sought declaration that the said partition deed is null and void. The plaintiff filed an application seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in any manner with the suit properties and from carrying out any transaction of sale in respect of suit properties. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants, granted injunction by the impugned order dated 20.9.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant No.1 has preferred appeal from order No.88 of 2006 and defendant Nos. 2 to 22 have preferred appeal from order No.82 of 2006. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants in support of their respective appeals submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law in as much as even according to the plaintiff herself, she along with 10 the defendants, is the co-owner of the suit properties and, therefore, the Trial Court could not have granted injunction against the defendants from interfering with the suit properties in as much as every co-owner is entitled to enjoy the property of which he is a co-owner. Mr.Aga, learned Counsel for the appellant in appeal from order No.88 of 2006, submitted that in so far as the order passed by the Trial Court restraining him from transferring the suit properties is concerned, the appellant is not interested in selling his share in the properties till the disposal of the suit. However, the impugned order to the extent it restrains him from enjoying the suit properties, is liable to be set aside. Mr. S. Vehidulla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in appeal from order No.82/2006, submitted that the Trial Court could not have restrained the appellants from enjoying the suit properties, being co-owners of the suit properties. In so far as restraint granted by the Trial Court from transferring the suit properties is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties, is minimal and, therefore, the restraint order against the appellants, cannot be sustained and is causing serious prejudice to the appellants in as much as they are not in a position to dispose of their share in the suit properties which are quite big. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11 5. Per contra, Mr Lotlikar,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff submitted that the defendants have not seriously disputed the status of the plaintiff as a co-owner and as such the defendants are not entitled to sell the suit properties or any part thereof by creating third party rights during the pendency of the suit and in the event restraint order is vacated, the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings by creation of third party rights. In so far as the impugned order to the extent it grants injunction against the defendants from interfering with the suit properties is concerned, learned Senior Counsel fairly conceded that the he will have no objection, if this part of order is set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The suit is of the year 2006. The impugned order was passed on 20.9.2006. During the pendency of this appeal, on 12.4.2007, this Court passed an order in C.A. No.316/2006 in A.O.82/2006 and in C.A..No.320/2006 in A.O.88/2006 clarifying that the appellants may enter the premises for the purpose of enjoying their co-ownership rights without any interference. The impugned order to the extent it restrains the defendants from creating third party rights is in operation since 20.9.2006. Moreover, limited issues arise in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Having regard to this factual background, I am of the considered opinion that both 12 the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by passing following order : ORDER (i) Special Civil Suit No.41/2006/A pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division is expedited. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.09.2009. The parties agree to cooperate for early disposal of the suit. (ii) During the pendecy of the suit, the impugned order to the extent it restrains the defendants from carrying out any transaction of sale in respect of suit property is concerned, is maintained. During the pendency of the suit, the impugned order to the extent it restrains the defendants from interfering with the suit property is concerned, is set aside. Both the appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA 13