1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 108/2011 (SAROJ WD/O RAMCHANDRA CHUMAL & OTHERS VERSUS UMESH LAXMANRAO NAGPURE & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.V. Deshmukh, counsel for the R-1 to 3. Shri M.A. Sable, counsel for the R-5 to 17. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16 , 2011 . Heard. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 04.08.2011, it appears that the trial Court was justified in partly rejecting the injunction application filed by the appellants as the appellants did not have a prima-facie case in regard to the prayer, which was refused by the trial Court. The trial Court observed and rightly so, that prima-facie, it appeared that the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act did not apply to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants have relied on a pleading in the written statement of the respondent nos.1 to 3 to state that they have alleged that there was a partition of the property in the year 2009 by metes and bounds and, therefore, they cannot say that the property devolved in the year 1955. 2 The statement made on behalf of the appellants is clearly misplaced as a reading of plaint paragraph 1 clearly shows that the appellants have pleaded in the plaint that late Tukaram had divided the suit property prior to his death in the year 1955 in three parts, as shown in sketch appended to the plaint, between his three sons, Nilkanth, Prabhakar and Ramchandra. The order passed by the trial Court appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are apprehensive that the demolition of the southern portion by the respondent nos.1 to 3 would cause damage to the middle portion of the property, which is occupied by the appellants. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 states that the respondent nos.1 to 3 would take care and would ensure that no damage would be caused to the middle portion of the house property, which is allegedly in occupation of the plaintiffs, while constructing the southern portion. In the result, the appeal against order is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE