1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1337 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 181 OF 2009 IN WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1337 OF 2008 Smt. Chhaya Prakash Sinkar .... Appellant V/s. Smt. Kalpana Vikas Sinkar .... Respondent Mrs. Madhubala Kajle i/b O.P. Pandya for Appellant. Mr. G.S. Bhat for Respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 22ND APRIL 2009. P.C. Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Her application at exhibit 2 for temporary injunction restraining respondent from obstructing her 2 entering in matrimonial house that is the suit premises in any manner is rejected. 3. Parties are not at dispute that the suit premises belongs to one Chandrakant Sinkar who expired in the month of July 2004. There is also no dispute that before death he executed Gift Deed on 5th May 2004 in favour of the dauthter of respondent no. 1 that is the grand daughter of Chandrakant Sinkar. The application claiming temporary injunction itself suggests that the appellant is not in possession of the suit premises as on the date of filing of suit. The appellant also relied upon her certificate of Marriage and Death Certificates of her husband and father-in-law. These certificates, however, does not prove her possession to the suit premises. Apart from these documents, the appellant could not produce any other evidence to show her possession to the suit premises. In above facts, I do not find any substance in the Appeal from order, hence same is dismissed. 3 4. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No. 131 of 2009 will not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. 5. The appellant and respondent both are dauther-in-laws of deceased Chandrakant Sinkar and they are claiming their rights in respect of the suit flat belonging to Chandrakant Sinkar. Both the appellant and respondent are widows. The appellant also suffered two major brain operations because of her serious head injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the hearing of the S.C. No. 2418 of 2008 deserves to be expedited. 6. Order accordingly. (R.V. MORE, J.) 4