1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 818/2011 (Santosh P. Charpe & another VERSUS Subhash S. Charpe & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.D. Muley, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y.R. Sonkusare, counsel for the R-1 to 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 15 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the impugned orders, as also the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners, who are the brother and the father of the plaintiffs, have claimed a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from entering into the suit property and disturbing their possession over the same. The dispute in this case is between the father and the sons, who are the coparceners in the suit property. Both the Courts, therefore, rightly held that one coparcener cannot seek a temporary injunction against the other coparceners for excluding them from enjoying the coparcenery property. There is nothing wrong with the orders passed by the trial and the first appellate Court as they are based on the well settled principle of law. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE