1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 154 OF 2009 Tulsabai wd/o Harichandra Deogade & Ors. Vs. Meerabai wd/o Harilal Kolte & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. J. Khan Adv for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 11 th DECEMBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the appellant. None appears for respondents. The plaintiff had filed an application for temporary injunction vide Ex. 5 which came to be decided on 04.08.2009. The suit property was originally owned by Bapurao Deogade. He had left behind him one son and daughter namely Harichandra and Muktabai. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property has been divided amongst the heirs of Bapurao i.e. Harichandra and 2 Muktabai. Inspite of this it is alleged that the defendants 1 to 5 have sold some portion of property to defendants 6 and 7. It is their contention that the property is still not partitioned and the sale is not binding. Further it is contended that the defendants 6 and 7 are now trying to dispose of the suit property. Application was opposed by the defendants 6 and 7. However in their reply they have categorically mentioned in para 14 that they do not intend to alienate the property in future. In view of this statement in para 14 i. e. in reply to para 18, learned Judge has rightly rejected the application. This undertaking on the part of the defendants 1 to 5 is itself enough and with this undertaking it is clear that they cannot now dispose of the property without obtaining the consent of the Court and without their being any specific order to that effect. In view of this I do not find any substance in the appeal. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE 3 svk