1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4226 OF 2007 (HARIDAS S. YEOTKAR. Vs KASHIRAM P. LOTHE & ANR....) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Shri C.A.Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2008. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Joshi for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge dismissing petitioner's Misc. Civil Application No.144 of 2006, whereby the petitioner had taken exception to rejection of his application for injunction by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner is purchaser of nine Gunthas of land out of properties bearing Survey No.80/3, which are undisputedly owned by the family of the respondents. The petitioner claims that there were two 2 partitions in the family, as a result of which the portion which was sold to the petitioner came to the share of one of the family members viz. Kashiram and therefore, he sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit of the suit land which plaintiff claimed to have purchased to access his field. In face of concurrent prima-facie findings by two courts in favour of the respondents, it would be impermissible to restrain the respondents who are members of the family from interfering in the plaintiff's alleged enjoyment of the property which he purchased. He is a stranger to the property and, therefore, unless he establishes at trial that his vendor has right to sell and he had validly purchased the property, he would not be in a position to claim injunction to restrain the respondents. It cannot be said that the view taken by the Courts below is incorrect to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. 3 3. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. JUDGE RR.