{1} ao7111.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 71 OF 2011 Sau.Bebi @ Madhuri w/o Dhananjay Upasani Appellant Versus Sanjay s/o Madanlal Gugale & others Respondents Mr.Babanrao N. Palve, advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Gawali, advocate for respondents CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 27 th April, 2011 PER COURT: 1 An application tendered by the plaintiff claiming an order of temporary injunction, during pendency of suit, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, has been rejected by the trial Court. 2 Petitioner herein – original plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No.232/2010 claiming partition and separate possession of the ancestral properties. According to the plaintiff, her father alienated ancestral properties and out of the said nucleus, he started business at Ahmednagar. Father of the plaintiff thereafter purchased the properties which are subject matter of suit. According to the plaintiff, the properties purchased by her father were by applying income derived from alienating the joint family properties and as such, she is entitled to claim partition and separate possession of the properties which are subject matter of the suit. {2} ao7111.odt 3 Defendants controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. 4 The trial Court, while considering the contentions raised by the plaintiff, found that in the plaint presented by the plaintiff, there are no pleadings as to what was the nucleus available with the father of the plaintiff in the form of joint family properties which were alienated by him for developing business at Ahmednagar and for purchasing different properties. In the absence of pleadings in that behalf, it is difficult to accept the contention of the plaintiff that the suit properties are joint family properties or the properties purchased by her father were by applying the income derived from alienating the joint family properties. The trial Court was justified in turning down the request made by the plaintiff for clamping restraint against the defendants. It is also informed that the plaintiff has registered the lis as contemplated by Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. In that view of the matter, instant Appeal from Order does not require any favourable consideration. Appeal from Order is devoid of substance. 5 Appeal from Order, therefore, stands rejected. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/ao7111