1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1529/2009 (Mahadeo Pandurang Kokate Vs. Natthi Bhaurao Thakre & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.R. Johorapurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 12 , 2009 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-8, Nagpur on 23rd of September, 2008, rejecting an appeal against the order refusing to grant temporary injunction as also the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umrer, on 4th of January, 2008, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the defendant no.1 is his real sister. The defendant no.2 is the son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner illegally executed a Gift Deed of the suit property in favour of his son, the defendant no.2. It was the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendant no.2 was trying to alienate the suit property and, therefore, it was necessary to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from alienating the suit property or disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the same. The trial as well as the appellate Court rightly 2 held that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of the relief of temporary injunction as there was material to prima facie show that the father of the petitioner had executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the defendant no.2 in the year 1977 and the revenue record was corrected. The name of the petitioner was recorded as the guardian of the defendant no.2 who was shown to be the owner of the property. After the defendant no.2 attained the age of majority, the name of the plaintiff was deleted as a guardian. The Courts then found that in an earlier suit filed by third party against the plaintiff, bearing Regular Civil Suit No.112/1983, the petitioner had himself pleaded that the suit land belonged to Kashinath/deft. no.2 and as Kashinath was only 11 years of age when the suit land was gifted to him, he was shown as the guardian of Kashinath. In view of the aforesaid glaring facts and the material on record, both the Courts rightly found that the plaintiff neither had prima facie case nor was the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. There is no error whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the trial as well as the appellate Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP