: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.976 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2009 Janubai A. Perreira & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Panchsheel Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.G. Damle for the Appellants. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. S.U. Dhakephalkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The appellants have approached this Court against the order dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai, Dist. Thane, on Exhibit “5” and Exhibit “19” in Special Civil Suit No.66 of 2008, refusing interim relief to them. According to the appellants, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 are their siblings who had without the consent of the appellants sold property, which belonged to their father, Anton Parera, to respondent No.1. It is the contention of the appellants that respondent No.2 executed a sale : 2 : deed in favour of respondent No.1 acting on the basis of a power of attorney which, according to the appellants, had not been executed by them. 2. The appellants have, therefore, in a Suit challenged the sale deed dated 29th April, 2002 as well as the power of attorney allegedly executed by them in favour of respondent No.2. 3. The trial Court, in my opinion, has rightly refused the interim relief to the appellants. The father of the appellants namely Anton Parera had executed a registered agreement of sale on 11th May, 1988 in respect of the suit property in favour of respondent No.1. Anton Parera died on 30th January, 1998. After his death, respondent No.2 acting on the basis of a power of attorney executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants have developed the suit property and have constructed a suit structure thereon. The suit property has been in possession of respondent No.1 since 1998. Even after the sale deed was signed on 29th April, 2002, the appellants did nothing about : 3 : the same till they filed the Suit in 2008. 4. In my opinion, no case has been made out to grant the reliefs sought by the appellants. It would not be proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct respondent No.1 not to create third party rights since, as observed by the trial Court, certain amounts have been paid to the appellants after the sale deed was executed. 5. The Appeal from Order is rejected. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1211 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......