1 ao407.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.407 OF 2010 Dr.Sharad Appanna Katekari ...Appellant vs. Dr.Shankar Appanna Katekari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.A.Valsangkar i/b Mr.Pankaj Das for the Appellant Mr.Nitin Jamdar i/b Mr.Vijay Killedar for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Mr.A.R.Gole for respondent no.1 and 2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN,J. DATE : JULY 26, 2010 P.C.: 1 This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaisingpur rejecting the appellant s application for injunction restraining the defendant Nos.3 and 4 from raising construction over the properties. It was the plaintiff s case that on 12-11-1977 the properties of Appanna Katekari were partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as other members of the family. The suit properties came to the share of the plaintiff though they had been purchased in the name of defendant no.1-Shankar. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also points out that this memorandum of partition which was executed on 12-11-1977 had been acted upon as can be seen from the suit vide no.234 of 1987 filed by one Tarabai, mother of the appellant against Nanda and Sushila who were parties to the said partition deed. However, it is not disputed that necessary mutation entries were not carried out in the property register maintained by the City Survey Office or in the municipal record. The learned counsel for the appellant states that since the revenue record is only for the purpose of 2 ao407.sxw collection of revenue, it does not create any right in favour of any party. All the same it cannot be forgotten that the purchaser who is a stranger to the family can be identified only with reference to the revenue record. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 purchased the property on 31-7-2009. It is not shown that they had notice of the plaintiff s right. Thereafter, they had started a construction over the property. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that since the construction has been started, there is no question of plaintiff being in possession. It is stated that the construction has come up to 1 st floor. 2 Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in refusing the injunction claimed by the plaintiff though he may have failed to discuss the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 3 The plaintiff claims under family arrangement of the year 1977 which had not been recorded in the relevant records of the City Survey or Municipality and therefore, the plaintiff would have to blame himself in claiming injunction at this stage. The respondents who hold the title would be entitled to the activities which they are carrying on. 4 With these observations, Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.534 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5 The learned trial Judge may expedite the matter. Both the learned counsel agree that the counter parts before the trial Court would co-operate with the learned Judge for expeditious hearing of the suit. (R.C.CHAVAN,J.)