1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.343 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2009 Ms. Preeti Dayakrishan Sapru ....Appellant Versus Vishnu Undrya Thakre & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. R. D. Soni i/b. M/s. Ram & Co. for the Appellant. Mr. Rahul Singh for Respondent No.1. Mr. Manoj J. Bhatt for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 10th JUNE, 2009. P.C. : Heard, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Appellant is the Original Plaintiff. The Special Civil Suit No.115 of 2008 was filed by the Appellant against the Respondents for specific performance of Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement dated 20th February, 2007. In this suit, the Appellant filed an application at exhibit-5 for injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering in her possession in the suit property and also from creating third party interest in the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the said application and therefore, the present Appeal from Order. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that at the time of the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement, an earnest amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to Respondent No.1 and thereafter till 26th June, 2007 a total amount 2 of Rs.10,50,000/- was given to Respondent No.1 out of the total consideration of Rs. 14,56,840/-. It was also the specific contention that possession of the suit property was handed over to the Appellant at the time of execution of the said Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement. 4. In order to substantiate the case of possession over the suit property, the Appellant relied upon the photographs showing a board with her name in the suit property. Apart from these photographs, there is no other evidence to prove the Appellant’s prima-facie possession over the suit property. The learned Trial Judge held that the photographs will not prove that the Appellant is in physical possession of the suit property. I do not see any error in the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge especially in the absence of any other documentary evidence. Since, the Appellant has not proved prima-facie possession over the suit property, the Trial Court was justified in refusing injunction to the Appellant restraining the Respondents from interfering in her alleged possession over the suit property. 5. So far as the injunction claimed by the Appellant restraining the Respondents from creating third party interest in the suit property is concerned, Mr. Rahul Singh & Mr. Manoj Bhatt, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.& 2 respectively submitted that already the suit property is transferred by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 by an Agreement dated 15th November, 2007. They further make a statement that till the pendency and final disposal of the Special Civil Suit No.115 of 2008 neither Respondent No.1 nor Respondent No.2 shall create third party interest in the suit property. The said statement is accepted. In view of the said statement, the second prayer for injunction will not survive. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the Appeal from Order and the same is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 7. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No. 414 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)