FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.50/2010 Shri Abhijit Darandale,Adv.for appellants. Shri V.D.Hon,Adv.for R.6-A & 6-B. .... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22/02/2010. 1] This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9/2/2010. Respondents 7 and 8 in this Appeal are the original plaintiffs who instituted a suit for partition and separate possession vide Regular Civil Suit No.196/1990. One of the properties of which partition was sought happened to be Gut No.182. 2] The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 5/1/1995. The trial Court while passing the decree, issued a specific direction/injunction that the original defendant nos.1,2,3 and 5 shall not alienate the suit property until the partition is effected. Despite passing of decree and an injunction operating, the present petitioner purchased part of Gut No.182 from the judgment-debtors under a sale deed dated 16/8/2002. The decree passed by the trial Court was maintained upto the Supreme Court. With a view to execute the decree, the proceedings under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procecure, were taken up for actual partition to be effected by metes and bounds before the Collector. In those proceedings, the present appellant raised objection and prayed for adjustment of equity by allotting property purchased by the petitioner to the share of the vendors. The objection raised by the petitioner/appellant came to be rejected. 3] Aggrieved thereby, Writ Petition came to be filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Single Judge held that as the property has been purchased in the teeth of an injunction order operating, the petitioner cannot be termed as a bonafide purchaser. Not only an injunction order but also Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act comes in way of the petitioner, in acquiring any title to the property. The learned Single Judge has held that there is no right in the present petitioner to object to the partition proceedings pending before the revenue authorities. 4] We are in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 5] One more circumstance need to be noted that the present petitioner/appellant has already filed the suit against her vendors being Regular Civil Suit No.240/2006. We are of the considered view that the present appellant has no locus to object to the partition proceedings. It cannot also be lost sight of the fact that the present appellant has purchased an undivided share from the vendors. The learned counsel for the appellant had moved the matter, by pointing out extreme urgency today morning and we have taken up the matter at 2.30 p.m. as the Tahsildar was to hand over the possession to the respectives parties. Advocate Shri Hon for the decree-holder, makes a statement on instructions from the instructing advocate that the decree holders are already put in possession in execution of the decree. 6] For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not see any merit in the matter and the Appeal stands dismissed summarily. The learned counsel for the appellant disputes the fact that possession is already handed over and the decree is executed. 7] In view of disposal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 2402/2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [A.P.DESHPANDE] JUDGE JUDGE umg/lpa50-10