( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8024 OF 2008 Balaji s/o Dattatraya Vallamshetwar APPELLANTS/ and another. APPLICANTS VERSUS Bhagwan s/o Vishwanath Vallamshetwar RESPONDENT ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, advocate for the respondent. WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 11109 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5931 OF 2009 Bhagwan s/o Vishwanath Villameshetwar CROSS- OBJECTIONER VERSUS Balaji s/o Dattatraya Villamshetwar and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, advocate for Cross-Objectioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the respondents. ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants are original defendants and are brothers interse. The respondent is their cousin. One Satyanarayan Rathi owned an open space. According to the parties, they agreed to purchase the said open space for consideration of Rs. 1,81,001/- from said Satyanarayan Rathi. They jointly paid earnest money of Rs. 1,00,001/- to him and were to be in joint possession of southern portion of the property in question. The northern portion was in possession of third person by name, Shamlal, which was agreed to be given within two (2) months. There is no dispute about the fact that the parties have together instituted Special Civil Suit No. 35/1996 against said Satyanarayan and others for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 3. The respondent filed suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants in respect of a portion of municipal house property No. 163/2 which is ( 3 ) described by Red colour in the plaint map. He alleged that he was in lawful possession of the southern portion admeasuring 57 feet x 33.5 feet. The appellants filed counter claim and sought injunction alleging that they were in possession. 4. Both the Courts rendered concurrent findings that the parties failed to establish their lawful possession over a specific portion and that neither of them were entitled to seek injunction. The suit as well as the counter claim were, therefore, dismissed. 5. Mr. Katneshwarkar would submit that during pendency of the appeal, the appellants have purchased the suit property from legal representatives of deceased Satyanarayan by virtue of a sale-deed. He contended that though the sale transaction was sought to be brought on record, yet, the first Appellate Court directed that the sale-deed could be filed in separate suit for specific performance of the agreement i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 35/1996 and it could not be considered. Mr. Katneshwarkar submitted that such subsequent development ought to have been taken notice of. According to him, it is the substantial question of ( 4 ) law which needs consideration. I do not agree. The reason is not far to seek. The Special Civil Suit No. 35/1996 is still pending. The question whether the sale transaction between the appellants and the legal representatives of said Satyanarayan is hit by principle of “lis pendence” as per section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is outside the realm of the suits for injunction. The issues in the suit for injunction are limited to the extent of lawful possession. Apart from this, the pleadings as on the date of the suit are required to be seen. The parties jointly agreed to purchase the property in question from Satyanarayan. Obviously, there was no division of the property at the time of such agreement of sale entered into by the parties on one hand and Satyanarayan Rathi on the other hand. Once it is noticed that both the parties jointly were in possession in pursuance to such an agreement of sale, it goes without saying that they are the joint purchasers and as such, cannot claim injunction or counter injunction against each other. The Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and the counter claim. No substantial question of law is involved in this ( 5 ) appeal. Hence, the second appeal as well as Cross Objection are dismissed. No costs. In view of dismissal of second appeal and cross-objection, the civil applications do not survive and hence, stand dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa601-08