1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.166 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.197 OF 2009 Sadashiv Ganpati Kumbhar (Kuditrekar) ..Appellant V/s Krishnat Ganpati Kumbhar (Kuditrekar) & ors ..Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan with Ms.Deepti N. Pawar, Advocate, for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. . This Appeal from Order takes exception to the Order dated 8th December, 2008, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order the application Exh.29 for temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff came to be rejected. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties which are mentioned in para 1(a) to (d) 2 and sub paragraphs 2 & 3 of the plaint. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction restricting the claim to only properties mentioned in para 1(a) & 1(b). The said application for temporary injunction was considered by the Trial Court and by the impugned order it came to be rejected. The Trial Court took into consideration the fact that in Regular Civil Suit No.435 of 1999 filed by the sisters of the plaintiff i.e.the defendant Nos.2 & 3 in the present suit, the plaintiff had accepted the fact that the said properties mentioned in para 1(a) to 1(b) are self acquired properties of the defendant No.1. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the said properties mentioned in para 1(a) was purchased by the defendant No.1 alongwith one Mr.Lahu Bhau Patil on 28th June, 1971. The Trial Court was of the view that if the said property was purchased out of the joint family funds as is the case of the plaintiff, there was no any reason for the said Lahu Bhau Patil to join in the purchase of the said property. The Trial Court was of the view that in the light of the aforesaid facts the properties mentioned in para 1(a) could not be called as joint family properties and therefore, no injunction could be granted. 3 2. In so far as the property mentioned in para 1(b) is concerned, the said property was originally standing in the name of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 on the death of the father had followed the procedure of the concerned society and got the said property i.e.Plot No.83 Area 288.7 Sq.Meter transferred in his name. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that out of the said plots, two small plots have been sold by the defendant No.1 to the defendant Nos.11 and 12 as he is suffering from partial paralysis and he has no source of income. The Trial Court was, therefore of the view that the defendant Nos.11 & 12 having started construction after giving notice in that behalf and since no objection was raised pursuant to the said notice, the injunction, if any, granted in favour of the present plaintiff apart from the fact that he has no right qua the said properties in question would prejudice the defendant No.1 as well as the defendant Nos.11 & 12. The Trial Court, therefore, rejected the application for temporary injunction Exh.29. 3. Having perused the impugned order and having considered 4 the reasons mentioned by the Trial Court, in my view, the reasons cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.197 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)