1 WP No.3030/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3030 OF 2011 ZARIN MANECKSHA JALNAWALA AND ANR VERSUS PARVEZ NOSHIRWANJI JALNAWALA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Bajaj Anil S. Vivek Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents 1, 2 to 4 : Mr.VN Damle, Adv. h/for Mr. HF Pawar. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. 2) Original defendants have challenged the order passed below Exhibit-5 dated 24.9.2009 in RCS No.63/2009. The matter was indeed carried in Misc. Civil Appeal No.26/2010 before the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna, who, by order dated 28.9.2010, confirmed grant of injunction below Exhibit-5 in the suit. 3) Several features are argued by the learned Counsel for the parties litigating. Learned Counsel for respondent drew history, including pedigree was rendered in reply. The fact remains, the property in question bearing land Gut Nos.70 and 72 of village Deo-Murti, Tq and district Jalna belonged to Ambaji @ Hormusji, original owner, who expired in 1957, leaving 2 WP No.3030/2011 behind three sons and a daughter. Even after his death, the above referred two lands remained in his name in the revenue record. It was in the year 1984-1985, these two lands were transferred in the name of Nosherwanji, which again remained in his name up to 9.8.2004 and this arrangement indeed was not objected to by parties litigating. It was after death of Nosherwanji, an application for effecting mutation was made by the plaintiff, objections were raised and the learned Additional Commissioner directed the plaintiff to get the rights adjudicated from the civil court. Therefore, the suit came to be filed. 4) The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna has considered the scope of the controversy. The relations between the parties is not at issue. Defendant No.1 and 2 (petitioners herein) have claimed the suit property on the basis of partition. However, there is no document, showing that indeed such arrangement was effected or that these properties came to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 2. As stated earlier, the properties remained in the name of Ambaji up to 1984 and thereafter in the name of Nosherwanji up to 9.8.2004. 5) The plaintiffs have asserted half share in the suit property and sought partition and separate possession. The defendants have, during the course of pendency of the writ petition, sold 3 WP No.3030/2011 half of the share to third party, pursuant to protection granted by this court dated 29.4.2011. This aspect has added a violent situation to ripple and criticize conduct of the defendants. If the injunction, which the courts have clamped, is not extended, the possibility of the defendants' disposing off even the left over half portion of the property to third party cannot be ruled out. It will add to multiplicity of litigation if the purchasers are again to be added as defendants in the proceedings. 6) Considering these events, I do not see any error on the part of learned CJJD in passing the order dated 24.9.2009 and also the learned District Judge, confirming the order of the trial court. The writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. 7) Needless to indicate, this injunction would be restricted to the left over half share/area of the land in question. This is more so, owing to grant of stay by this Court dated 29.4.2011 in terms of prayer clause (c), the writ petitioner has sold half of the area. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/