AO.15-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 15 OF 2010 Ramniklal Bhagchand Shah .. Appellant Vs. Ashokkumar Bhagchand Shah & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. N. R. Bubna, for the Appellant. Mr. P. B. Shah, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, S. D. Malegaon, district Nashik, below application (Exh.5) in Special Civil Suit No. 50 of 2007 whereby he rejected the prayer of the appellant/plaintiff for an injunction. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are as under- . The parties are sons of one Bhagchand who had in his life time by a registered partition-deed, allotted 96 sq. mt. of land to the AO.15-10 - 2 - plaintiff and 85 sq. mt. each to three other sons. Thus, shares of each son of Bhagchandra had been carved out. Thereafter all these sons came together and decided to develop the entire property together. A power of attorney was therefore, given to defendant No.2. The property was eventually developed and several commercial and residential premises were constructed therein. The parties have not demacated as to what would be share to each one of them in the building. Each of the bothers however, got 2 flats, which they are in possession and about this there is no dispute. According to the plaintiff, since defendant No.2 did not furnish accounts of the said property, the plaintiff cancelled the power of attorney, given in favour of defendant No.2. Even thereafter defendant No.2 continued to execute the sale-deeds and was dealing with the property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit and in the said suit prayed for temporary injunction to restrain defendant No.2 from selling remaining two shop Nos. 8 and 9 in the building. 3. The learned trial Judge rightly held that since though there was partition effected by Bhagchand, all the four brothers came together and developed the four pieces of land together as one property and had not spelt out as to what would be their individual shares in the building AO.15-10 - 3 - that has come up. Therefore, though choice of the words by the learned Judge to describe this arrangement may not be accurate, the parties have come together, and, in the building that has come up, it would be difficult to identify which brother has what share. After having given a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2, and when only two shops are now remaining, without knowing whether said shops falls to the share of defendant or plaintiff, it was impossible for the trial Judge to restrain defendant No.2 from dealing with the property. In view of this, the impugned order does not call for any interference and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 4. The interest of the appellant should be taken care of by asking the defendant No. 2 to inform the Court at least one week before entering into any transaction in respect of shop Nos. 8 and 9 and submitting accounts in respect of all transaction which he had undertaken in respect of the building in the Court, after furnishing copies of the same within a reasonable time to all the brothers. The trial Court may consider expeditious hearing of the suit. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]