1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.29 of 2009 (Mr. Sudarshan P. Jonalagadda and another v. Manjudevi Purushottam Agrawal and others) Shri P.K. Sathianathan, Advocate for Appellants. Shri A.A. Sambaray, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri C.S. Lahabar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Shri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 to 9. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 24th April, 2009 This appeal takes exception to the rejection of appellants’ application Exhibit 5 for an injunction to restrain respondent Nos.3 to 9 from creating any third-party interest in the suit property till the disposal of the suit and from carrying on any construction in the suit property. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.1 and did not find it necessary to call upon the learned counsel for the other side to address me. The appellant claims that he has entered into an agreement to purchase the property from respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has purchased the property from respondent No.2, who claims to have been holder of power of attorney of respondent No.3. Thus it is not in dispute that the property was owned by respondent No.3. Even the appellants claim 2 through respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 first filed a complaint in May 2008 against respondent No.2 in respect of the irrevocable power of attorney stated to have been executed in favour of respondent No.2. Thereafter respondent Nos.3 to 5, whose names were mutated in the record of the property on 24-4-2008, executed a sale-deed in respect of the property in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 9 on 17-7-2008. The learned counsel for the appellants states that respondent No.3 may be at worst taken to be the co-owner of the property. In any case, as far as her share is concerned, the sale in favour of respondent No.1 must bind her and consequently the agreement of sale in favour of the appellants, so far as it relates to the share of respondent No.3, would also be valid. Therefore, he contends that the learned Trial Judge should have granted an injunction to protect the interest of respondent No.1 and the appellants. First, the owner respondent No.3, through whom the appellants claim, had made a police complaint indicating that there was a fraud in respect of the execution of irrevocable power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2, which has ultimately led to the claim of the appellants to title to the property. This question would have to be decided at the trial. The apprehension of the appellants that respondent Nos.6 to 9 would create third-party 3 interest in respect of the suit property and that this would complicate the ordeal of appellants in securing possession of the property for which he had paid a valuable consideration, could be taken care of by registering the lis by the appellants. Thereby, the prospective purchaser would get a notice if lis is registered that if he is purchasing the property, that would be subject to the decision of the suit. As for carrying out the construction in the suit property till the disposal of the suit, any person carrying on such construction would obviously do it at his own risk and the learned Trial Judge would at the time of considering the matter finally bear in mind that such person, who would take such risk, would not be entitled to claim any equity. In view of this, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed. Judge. Pdl.