1 ao-129.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 129 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4674 OF 2011 Milind s/o Madhukar Ugale, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agri.,& Business, R/o. Samsherpur, Tq.l Akole, District Ahmednagar & A/709, Shri Hanumanta Apartments, Bramhanwada, W.C. Chag Marg, Andheri Est, Bombay No.99. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Mandakini w/o Madhukar Ugale, Age: 62 years, Occ: Household., R/o. C/o. Dr. Pratibha w/o Vitthal Sadgir, Near Bus Stand, Javhar, Tq. Javhar Dist. Thane and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 17-02-2009 below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit NO. 30 of 2008 2 ao-129.11 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner. 2. The appellant herein, who is the plaintiff, filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 for declaration that the suit properties are the joint family properties and further prayed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights in it. By filing application below Exhibit-5 the appellant prayed that the respondents be restrained temporarily from creating third party rights in the suit properties pending the suit. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant being son of respondent No.1 and he has proved the genealogical tree as described in the plaint and therefore, the trial Court should have allowed the application filed by the appellant. It is further submitted that, the properties which are standing in the name of the defendants are purchased from the 3 ao-129.11 income of the joint family property. It is submitted that, the the father of the appellant and the husband of respondent No.1 was in police force and out of his salary income, the properties are purchased in the name of defendant No.1. Therefore, being a son and member of the joint family, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled for the share in the suit properties and hence, the suit was filed. However, the trial Court without appreciating the contentions of the appellant and the evidence brought on record, has rejected the application. Learned Counsel further submitted that, the land Gat Nos. 30 and 25 stands in the name of the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the trial Court should have considered this aspect while entertaining the application filed for temporary injunction. At the cost of repetition, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that, the properties which are standing in the name of defendant No.1 are purchased from the income of the joint family property and therefore, the appellant is entitled 4 ao-129.11 for the share in the said properties and therefore, he is entitled for temporary injunction. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. Perused the pleadings and averments in the Appeal from Order, annexures thereto, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Upon careful perusal of the order of the trial Court, it appears that the appellant herein except his bare words, did not produce on record any documentary evidence suggesting that the properties which are standing in the name of defendant No.1 are purchased from the income of the joint family property. The contention of the appellant that, the properties standing in the name of defendant No.1 are purchased from the income of his father, is also not supported by any documentary evidence on record. Therefore, in absence of any evidence on record merely on the basis of contentions of the appellant that Gat 5 ao-129.11 Nos. 30 and 25 stands in the name of plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 1 and 2, it was not possible for the trial Court to allow the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction. The appellant did not produce anything on record to show that, the properties which are standing in the name of defendant No.1 are purchased from the joint family income/property. 5. In view of this matter, in my view, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and same stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. . However, hearing of the Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 is expedited. The concerned Court to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible, within six months from today. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11