1 WP 10645/2009 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10645 OF 2009 Prakash Narhar Karbhase .. Petitioner V/s Mukund Narhar Karbhase & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Asutosh M. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18TH JULY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. For reasons more than one, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 3. The petition arises out of an interlocutory application for injunction filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff) in a suit. The two Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction. The view taken by both the Courts below is a possible view and requires no interference in exercise of 2 WP 10645/2009 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Even otherwise, if the averments made in the plaint are looked into, the petitioner has clearly admitted in the plaint that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are co-owners along with him of the suit property. He sought interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring the suit property. Under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property of every kind is transferable. The respondents therefore have a right to transfer their share in the suit property. Even if all the averments in the plaint are believed to be true, no injunction can be granted restraining the respondents from transferring their share in the suit property. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)