1 759.11-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 759 OF 2011 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 760 OF 2011 Mr.Junaid Akhtar Sayyed. ... Appellant. V/s. Mrs.Ranjana Dharma Pawar and another. ... Respondents. Jagdish N. Jagle for the appellant. Suresh K. Modi for respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 27th September 2011. P.C. : The appellant/ original plaintiff claims to be in possession of the premises allotted by M.M.R.D.A. in favour of respondent No.1/ original defendant No.1 under the letter of allotment annexed at page 180. There is a restraint to sell, lease, rent or transfer in any manner the allotted tenement for a period of ten years from the date of allotment. The plaintiff claims that he has entered into a mortgage deed with defendant No.2 and, as such, he is put in possession of suit premises in pursuance of the mortgage deed. The defendant No.2, according to the plaintiff, is constituted attorney of defendant No.1. Considering the terms of allotment the alleged transaction between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 does not have legal foundation 2 759.11-ao-- and cannot be recognized in law. So also the alleged transaction entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 does not have legal foundation and cannot be recognized in law. The trial Court has adopted correct view of the matter and rejected interim relief. No interference with the impugned order is called for in these appeals from order. 2. Both the appeals from order stand dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeals from order, pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)