( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1606 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2010 Mrs. Sharan Kaur w/o. Late Gurubax Singh .. Applicants Chhabda and others. Versus Manohar Singh s/o. Late Gurubax Singh .. Respondents Chhabda and others. Shri R.F. Totla, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 25.06.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for temporary injunction filed by original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 for restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from disturbing their possession over the suit property or creating third party interest. Present applicants are the appellants in First Appeal No. 259 of 2010, which is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 2008, decided on ( 2 ) 12.10.2009 by IIIrd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, thereby he dismissed the suit filed by the present applicants/original plaintiffs. 2. Brief case of the applicants is that Gat No. 24 admeasuring 2 H 51 R situated at Khandewadi, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, is joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. However, defendant No.1 sold it to defendant No.2 illegally. It is case of the plaintiffs that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the property. So, suit was filed for declaration that the sale-deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and also for injunction. 3. After hearing both sides the Trial Court come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property and as such they are not entitled to the relief of injunction. I may refer to issue Nos. 3 and 5 and discussion thereunder. 4. It was case of the defendants that there was oral partition between the parties and accordingly the suit ( 3 ) property had fallen to the share of defendant No.1. After the oral partition various properties were entered in the names of various shareholders and as such defendant No.1 sold the suit-land to defendant No.2, which has come to his share. Said defence is accepted by the Trial Court. 5. This application is for temporary injunction pending the appeal. Heard Adv. Shri R.F. Total for the applicants, Adv. Shri R.M. Deshmukh for respondent No.1 and Adv. Shri P.F. Patni for respondent No.2. All the three advocates have taken me through various documents, evidence and observations made in the judgment by the Trial Court. The learned advocate for the applicants pointed out to this Court the admission given by Manoharsingh in his cross- examination, wherein it is stated that as on the date when the statement was recorded, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. He denied that he was never in possession. It may be noted that on 01.08.2009 there was already sale-deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and it is stated in the sale-deed that respondent No. 2 is put in possession of the property. The learned advocate for the respondent argued that the admission ( 4 ) that on 01.08.2009 the plaintiffs were in possession of the property is inadvertent admission mistakenly given. Moreover, the Trial Court appears to have not weighed with the said admission. It is said to be stray admission as per defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The advocate for the respondents have taken me through various reasons given particularly in para 19 regarding the division of ancestral property among various sharers. It is stated that various properties were in possession and enjoyment of different share holders and mutations are effected in their names. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that mutation was effected as per family arrangement. 6. Considering totality of the circumstances and positive finding given by the Trial Court regarding possession, in my opinion, at this interim stage it is not preferable to discuss evidence in detail. At the same time, it is necessary in the interest of justice that there should not be further alienation of the suit property pending the appeal. So, this application is allowed partly. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from alienating the suit property or creating third party interest in the suit property pending ( 5 ) the appeal. 7. The Civil Application is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JUN10/ca1606.10