1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 8 OF 2008 (Ashok Govindra Mankar and another .v. Devidas Govindrao Mankar and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the appellants. Shri N.R. Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 11th October, 2007, vide which the application filed by the present appellants for temporary injunction has been rejected. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the Gift Deed of the suit property dated 17th June, 2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. They also prayed for a decree of partition and separate possession of the suit property. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also filed praying for the order of restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. The same is rejected. Hence, the present appeal. 2 Shri R.N. Ghuge, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in relying on the registered partition. He submits that the suit property is not mentioned in the partition and as such learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the said property which was an ancestral property could not have been given by way of Gift Deed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the respondent No.2. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have held that the appellants had made out a prima facie case and as such granted injunction. Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, on the contrary, submits that the learned trial Court has rightly refused an order of injunction. He submits that the suit property is gifted to the respondent No.1 by the deceased- respondent No.2 by way of registered Gift Deed. He further submits that as a matter of fact, the respondent No.1 had never attempted to alienate the suit property and as such the apprehension of the plaintiffs is totally imaginary. He, therefore, submits that no interference is required in the present appeal. The scope of Appeal against Order under Order 43 Rule 1 is limited. Unless the finding is found to 3 be perverse or impossible, this Court would not substitute the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Interference would be permissible only when it is found that the view taken by the learned trial Court is either an impossible or a perverse view. It would not be permissible for this Court to take another view only because it is found that there are two views possible and other view appears to be more appropriate to this Court. Though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties argued on the merits of the matter, I do not find it appropriate to go into the merits of the matter as any observation of this Court may prejudice the parties in the case before the learned trial Court. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a perverse view for warranting any interference in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for any interference. The appeal is dismissed as such. JUDGE *rrg.