1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1315 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1612 OF 2008 IN SPECIAL SUIT NO. 54 OF 2008 Shri Lal Bahadur Yadav & Ors. ... Appellants vs. Smt. Sunita Datta Patil & Ors. ... Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs) And Grampnchayat ... Respondent No.8 (Org.Deft. No.5.) Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. A.A.Garge, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants before this Court are the original defendants, who claim the suit property on the basis of an agreement for development and power of attorney executed by one Budhya Pandu Patil in the year 1991. Budhya died in 2001 and his son Datta died in 2003 and his widow Kamla died in 2007. The 2 plaintiffs/respondents are the legal heirs of Budhya and Datta and they claimed to be owners of the property. The defendant/appellants, for the first time, propounded the said agreement and the power of attorney in the year 2007 and tried to get their names entered in the Record of Rights on the basis of the power of attorney. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in their possession over the property. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, granted temporary injunction against the defendants. That order is challenged in this Appeal. 3. From the facts, it is clear that the defendants have no title over the property because no sale deed was executed and registered in their favour. They claimed right of possession of the property on the basis of a power of attorney executed by Budhya. Even though that power of attorney was executed and was attested by the Magistrate, still the power of attorney does not survive after the death of the person who had executed the power of attorney. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any fault with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. There is nothing on record to show that the order is per-se illegal or perverse. The relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature and normally the appellate Court 3 will not interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court unless it is found to be perverse or per-se illegal. 5. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, the parties shall not create third party interest over the property pending the suit. 6. As the Appeal is itself disposed of, C.A. No.1612 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)