1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.926 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1206 OF 2010 M/s. Orchid Vastunirman Sanstha & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shri Prakash V. Kamble & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan , adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Pankaj J. Das, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 25. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 12, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent nos. 1 to 25 are the original plaintiffs, who filed S.C.Suit No.1898 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune for partition and separate possession of their shares. Other respondents are the persons from whom the present appellants claim to have purchased their undivided share in the suit property. Appellants are the original defendant nos.7 to 12. On the application filed by the original plaintiffs, the trial Court directed defendants not to create any third party interest in the suit property and also not to obstruct joint possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 2 2 From the record, it is clear that the present appellants had purchased undivided share of some of the defendants in the suit property and, therefore, they cannot claim to be in possession of the specified portion of the property exclusively. Plaintiffs, who claim undivided share in the joint family property are also entitled to be in possession of the whole of the property jointly, which is the settled position of law. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the same. However, to avoid any difficulties to the defendants/appellants, who intend to dispose of the property, suit may be expedited. 3 Therefore, while the appeal and the application are hereby dismissed, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite and dispose off the suit as early as possible and preferably within one year. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)