1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1642 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1642 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Gawali for Petitioner/ defendant. The Respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed a suit claiming that 46 Ares portion was joint family property and he sought temporary injunction to restrain the present petitioners from interfering with his possession over it. Trial Court rejected that prayer after noticing that description of suit property was not very clear as plaintiff wants in possession about 84 Ares portion as per 7/12 extract and the 46 Ares part thereof was not clearly specified. It, therefore, found that effective order could not have been passed by it. In appeal filed by Respondent No.1/ plaintiff, Appellate Court noticed that the property was joint and sold by a co-owner i.e. petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.2, the plaintiff was contending that being co-sharer and co-owner he had a 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1642 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. right of preemption. Thus, Appellate Court noticed that a stranger has been introduced in possession. 2. Shri Gawali has contended that Petitioner NO.2 being a purchaser of specific portion and as sale deed itself disclosed that he is put in possession, the Appellate Court could not have restrained co-owner from enjoying the possession. The direction according to him, therefore, restrains petitioner No.2 from enjoying the possession of property purchased. 3. If 46 Ares portion is still joint, it is apparent that Petitioner No.1 could not have sold a specified portion out of it to Petitioner No.2. At this stage, Shri Gawali states that in sale deed description of property has been given but lateron the same has been corrected and undivided portion has been shown to have been sold to petitioner NO.2. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1642 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. The Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the controversy. The Petitioner No.2 who is subsequent purchaser and stranger, therefore, has got right to file appropriate proceedings. 5. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. On the contrary, trial Court did not read the plaint properly and, therefore, its approach is erroneous. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/03/2011. ans/1642