spb/- 1 wp7555-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7555 OF 2010 Ananta Sawala Zambre & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. Kumar Hiraji Vadhate & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr G.S. Godbole i/by Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioners. Mr.Durgaprasad S.Sabnis for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The ancestors of the petitioners and the ancestors of the respondents jointly purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 5th of December, 1929. Their names were jointly entered as holders in the 7/12 records. According to the petitioners, the petitioners’ ancestors subsequently excluded the respondents’ ancestors from possession of the suit property and the respondents are not in possession of the suit property. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction, restraining the respondents from disturbing their possession and creating any third party interest. The trial court spb/- 2 wp7555-10.sxw granted the injunction but on appeal the appellate court vacated the injunction. 3 The sale deed is in joint name of the petitioners’ ancestors and respondents’ ancestors and the petitioners and the respondents are therefore, the co-owners of the property. In respect of the co-owners, the evidence regarding exclusion must be strong. Ordinarily, there would be presumption that a co-owner would possess the property on behalf of all the co-owners unless there is strong evidence of the exclusion. The appellate court was, therefore, right in vacating the injunction in the absence of the strong evidence of exclusion. 4 As regards the relief of injunction against the transfer, a co-owner is entitled to transfer his share in the property and I see no reason for grant of injunction, restraining the respondents from transferring their share in the suit property. Needless to say that the transfer, if effected during the pendency of the suit, would be subject to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. With this observation, the petition is rejected summarily. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner requests for continuation of ad- interim relief previously granted. Request is rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]