1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1646 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4245 OF 2009 Levy Anthony Pereira & Anr. .... Appellants Vs. Anthony Bernard Pereira & Anr. .... Respondents Mr.P.M. Shah, Advocate for appellants. Mr.Vinay J. Hegde, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 18th November, 2009 P.C. 1. This First Appeal is preferred by the defendants to Short Cause Suit No.1715 of 2006 to challenge the decree dated 25th August 2009 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants have been permanently restrained from entering into or occupying the property consisting of house by name “Sylvilla” situate at Plot No.208 and 209-A, Chapel Road, Bandra, Mumbai. 2. Respondents to the appeal/original plaintiffs are the parents of appellant no.1. Appellant no.2 is the wife of appellant no.1. The respondents are the owners of the suit property having purchased the same in the year 1963. The house consists of ground plus upper two floors with terrace. The appellants had residing with 2 respondents as members of their family. Apparently the relationship with the appellants and respondents is strained. Therefore, the respondents had to file the suit herein for an injunction to restrain the appellants from entering into or occupying the suit property. On appreciation of the evidence before it, the trial Court decreed the suit, which decree is presently under challenge. In view of the admitted position that respondents are exclusive owners of the suit property and that the appellants have no rights whatsoever to occupy the same, there can be no challenge to the impugned decree as the appellants cannot foist themselves upon the respondents against their wishes. There is also no dispute that the appellants have made an alternate arrangement for themselves by taking premises on leave and license at Kharghar, just before commencing of the trial. In the circumstances, nothing falls for consideration of this Court in the present appeal proceedings. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 3. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks some time to comply with the impugned judgment and order. Since the appellants have already started residing at alternate arrangement made by them, there is no question of granting any time to them to comply with the impugned judgment and decree. Mr.Shah states that the appellants still have some of their belongings in the suit property. The appellants shall furnish list of their articles owned by them to the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents states 3 that the respondents will permit the appellants to remove their articles from the suit property within two weeks, after receiving the list of the articles. 4. In view of dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.4245 of 2009 does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)