1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8480 OF 2010 Latabai w/o. Ashok Ghaiwat ....Appellant. Versus Subadrabai w/o. Gorakhnath Ghaiwat & Ors. ....Respondents. Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.G. Shinde , Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mrs. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 14th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating and transferring the land Gat No. 19. The suit was partly decreed. The Trial Court declared the sale deed in respect of the Gat No. 19 to the extent of 3 Acres executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 as null and void, so also clamped injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering in the 2 possession of plaintiff over lands Gat Nos. 19, 17/2, 14. The Trial Court also clamped injunction against defendant No. 1 from alienating or creating third party interest on the joint family property. 2. The present respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said judgment. The appeal was partly allowed. The declaration that the sale deed is not binding to the extent of share of plaintiff is maintained. So also, defendant No. 2 was perpetually restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land Gat No. 19, but set aside the relief of injunction against the defendant No. 1, restricting defendant No. 1 from alienating or transferring the property. The present appellant/original plaintiff has assailed the said judgment. 3. Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase) contended that the respondents are alienating more property than their share and as such, they are required to be restrained and the said sale deed ought to have been declared as null and void. 4. The defendants have every right to deal with the undivided share and no injunction can be clamped restraining them from alienating their undivided share. So also the declaration in favour of the plaintiff can be granted only to the extent of her share and the Court below have rightly declared the sale deed as null and void to the extent of share of plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot get a larger relief than her share in the 3 property. 5. In the light of above, no substantial question of law arises. As such the second appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of second appeal, the civil application for stay does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] ssc/sa400.10