IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2008 Ajit Tukaram Mote & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Appellants V/s Bhupal Dattu Gadade & Anr. ...... ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.Sanesh Patil, Adv. For respondent No.2. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 16th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. Admit. Following substantial questions need consideration: 1)Whether document at Ex.42 in question is a document of mortgage or sale out right sale? 2)Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the right to repurchase vested in Tukaram was his personal right and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to avail the benefits under the said right, when there was no clear stipulation to that effect in the document in question and the defendant No.1 had not entered into the witness box? 16.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2008 Ajit Tukaram Mote & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Applicants V/s Bhupal Dattu Gadade & Anr. ...... ...... ...... Respondents. Adv. For the applicants. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 16th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. By this civil application applicants claim temporary injunction restraining respondents from transferring or creating third party interest in the suit property. Mr.Patil learned advocate for the applicants submits that no injunction was granted in favour of he applicants during pendency of the suit or appeal. Therefore for the first time in the second appeal applicants cannot claim injunction. Hence civil application stands rejected. 16.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.)