-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1149 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NO. 1424 OF 2009 Raju @ Yusuf Basheer Ahmed Kulkarni ... Appellant vs. Smt. Jannat Shaikh Basheer Ahmed and others ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Bhavake, instructed by Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR,J. DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 2009 P.C. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 27th February, 2009, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, by which the learned Judge has rejected the application for interim injunction filed by the appellant, who is the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2009, by holding that the appellant has failed to prove his case that he is son of Shaikh Basheer Ahmed. 2. The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit on the ground that he is having right in the disputed property being Survey No. 1230-G, final plot No. 30 admeasuring 679.9 sq.ft. It is his case that the said property was purchased by -2- Shaikh Basheer Ahmed, who expired on 24th April, 2007. His first wife was one Noorbi who died on 31st January, 2006 and the plaintiff is his son. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are the daughters who are born to the said Shaikh Basheer Ahmed from his second wife, Janatbi, who is defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that being son of said Shaikh Basheer Ahmed, the plaintiff has right in the suit property along with defendant No.1. In spite of that, without his consent, defendant No.1 has sold the property to defendant No.7 by way of a sale deed dated 18th September, 2008. According to the plaintiff, he is having half share in the suit property and accordingly the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 by filing their written statement at Exh. 30. Defendant No.7 also resisted the suit by filing his written statement at Exh. 29. It is the case of the defendants that the suit property was the self-acquired property of deceased Shaikh Basheer Ahmed and deceased Noorbi and deceased Shaikh Basheer Ahmed has no relationship worth the name in any manner with the plaintiff and the plaintiff, therefore, has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is the case of the defendants that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 7 is legal and valid. No birth certificate has been produced by the plaintiff showing that he is the son of deceased Shaikh Basheer Ahmed. Considering the prima facie evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff has failed to -3- prove his case. The trial Court also found that defendant No.7 being a bona fide purchaser may be put to great inconvenience, if the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is granted. 4. I have gone through the order of the learned trial Judge as well as the documentary evidence produced along with the appeal memo. The learned counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to point out that the appellant- original plaintiff is the son of deceased Shaikh Basheer Ahmed. The learned trial Judge has found that the birth date of the plaintiff is 2-6-1966. As per the certificate produced on record, the marriage between the deceased Shaikh Basheer Ahmed and Noorbi took place on 28-6-1967. The learned Judge has accordingly found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is born out of the said wedlock. The learned trial Judge has considered the injunction application in its proper perspective and, in my view, no interference is required to be made in the said order which is challenged in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to point out as to how the learned Judge has committed an error. Hence, appeal is dismissed in limine. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in Civil Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.