: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.964 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1168 OF 2008 Narendra Laxman Ladkat & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Smt.Shashikala Arjun Ladkat & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Mukund T. Pise for the Appellants. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Mr.Nitin Muley for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and to 18. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. The impugned order warrants no interference. The Appeal from Order is filed against the order refusing interim reliefs in respect of four properties. The suit is filed for partition. 3. The said properties in which interest is claimed at plot Nos.271, final Plot No.270/3, Final Plot No.270/9 and a plot at Loni and properties mentioned in Schedules II and III to the plaint. : 2 : 4. As far as final Plot No.270/3 and plot at Loni are concerned, the refusal to grant any interim reliefs must be upheld. 5. Defendant No.7 in the present suit had filed a suit bearing No.769 of 2002. The parties herein who are all related were also the parties to the said suit. Plaintiff No.1 was Defendant No.2 in the suit. The suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. It is agreed that the consent terms as translated contain an acknowledgement/declaration of the parties that final plot No.270/3 was the self-acquired property of one Arjun the predecessor of Defendant No.1 to 7. In view thereof, the Appellants/Plaintiffs would have no interest whatsoever in the said property. 6. The Appellants are not entitled to any injunction in respect of the property at Loni. Defendant No.19 is the father of Appellant No.1. Defendant No.19 had admittedly filed a suit for specific performance of the suit property against Defendant No.8. Defendant No.8 is the brother of the said Arjun. If the property at Lone was jointly owned, there would be no question of Defendant No.19 filing a suit for specific performance of the said property. It is not the Appellants’ case that the : 3 : said agreement was only for a share undivided or otherwise of Defendant No.8 in the said property. The filing of the suit for specific performance militates against the theory of the property being jointly owned. 7. The Appellants ought really to have disclosed these facts in detail in the present suit. 8. However, as far as the other two properties are concerned namely plot Nos.271 and 270/9 and the properties mentioned in Schedules-II and III to the plaint, the impugned order is modified and limited protection is granted to the Appellants. In the event of the Respondents seeking to dispose of, alienate, encumber or part with possession of these properties, they shall do so only after giving two weeks notice of their intention to do so to the advocate of the Plaintiffs in the trial Court. Liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply afresh for interim reliefs in the trial Court only in respect of the said properties. All the contentions in that regard shall be kept open.