1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.309 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.402 OF 2010 Rajendra S. Purkar and Ors. ...Appellants. v. Sampat S. Purkar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar, adv. for the Appellants. Mr.Ramesh Dubey-Patil i/by Ajay Misar and Co., adv., for the respondents. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 4th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appellants are the original plaintiffs. They have filed Special Civil Suit No.53 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nifad for partition and separate possession. Therein they also sought injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest pending the suit. According to the appellants, property was ancestral property of the plaintiffs and their father deceased defendant no.1. Defendant no.3 had obtained sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 about the suit property. Defendants had contended that it was self acquired property of the defendant no.1 and ,therefore, plaintiffs have no right or 2 interest in the property. The trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal and the application. 2 The impugned order clearly shows that no document was produced before the trial Court to show that the deceased defendant no.1 was holding any ancestral joint family property. Suit property was purchased by him under registered sale deed in the year 1981 and that property was sold away by him in favour of the defendant no.3. Today the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to produce copy of the mutation entry no.537 to show that the deceased defendant no.1 and his brother had sold some property for Rs.4,000/- on 1.6.1981 and on the same date, the defendant no.1 had purchased the suit property for Rs.7,000/-. It appears that property, which was sold away by the defendant no.3 and his brother was also purchased by them in the year 1976-77. There is no document to show that the defendant no.1 was ever holding any ancestral joint family property. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the present appeal. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 after taking instructions, makes a statement that pending the suit, defendant no.3 shall not create any third party interest in the property. In view of this statement, nothing survives in the present appeal and the application. Therefore, 3 application and the appeal both stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)