- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 438 of 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 526 of 2009 Sonba Bhujaba Gharat ... Appellant Vs. Bhujaba Ganpati Gharat & Ors. ... Respondent *** Mr. Milind Deshmukh , for the appellant. *** CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 10, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is original plaintiff. He filed suit for partition and declaration that sale-deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No. 7 on 25th February 2008 is illegal and void ab- initio. It is case of the appellant/plaintiff that he alongwith respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are members of the joint family property. Respondent No.2 is his step mother. It is his further case that suit property is joint family property. In spite of this fact, respondent No.2 sold the survey Nos. 420/1/3, 421/ 1+2/2 (hereinafter referred - 2 - to as the “suit property”) to the respondent No. 7, and therefore, suit came to be filed for the reliefs stated above. The appellant has also filed an application, restraining respondent No. 7 from interfering in his possession over the suit property. 2. It is case of respondent No.2 that the joint family property was already partitioned and the suit property was given to her share and thereafter she sold the suit property to the respondent No. 7 for total consideration of Rs.21,50,000/-. The trial Court on the basis of mutation entries in the name of respondent No.2 held that respondent No.2 was in possession of the suit property and the same was handed over to respondent No.7, pursuant to sale-deed dated 25-2-2008. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit property which was sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No. 7 was a joint family property. There was no partition and therefore, injunction ought to have been granted in favour of the appellant. I find this submission is without any merit. The issue whether the suit property is partitioned or not will have to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. At the stage of interim relief, what is required to be seen is - who is in possession of the suit property. There is no evidence on behalf of the appellant in this regard. The respondent No. 2 on the contrary, relied upon mutation entries in her name in respect of the suit property. - 3 - 4. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned in the appeal. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of present appeal, Civil Application No. 526 of 2009 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]