1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Appeal from Order No.87 of 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri T.M. Venjane for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They have claimed share in the suit property bearing municipal house No.R/2-352 corresponding to CTS No.5640 situated at Latur. According to the appellants, property was purchased by their father Moinoddin and they have share therein and, therefore, suit was 2 filed for declaration of ownership, possession and injunction. Application at Exh.5 was filed seeking temporary injunction against alienation or sale of the property. 3. The trial court in paragraph 8 of its judgment considered that the sale deed was produced on record at Exh. 4/3 and it shows that consideration of Rs.1200/= paid to the vendor Ibrahim Baig by husband of Defendant No.2 on behalf of Defendant No.2. So, the trial court came to the conclusion that the property was purchased by mother who is still alive. The trial court also referred to the fact that the father, at that time a retired person, was having liability to maintain another wife and children. Observation to this effect are in paragraph 10 of 3 the judgment of the trial court. 04. One important thing to be noted is that there is nothing on record to show that the defendants were intending to sell or alienate or otherwise dispose of the property and the apprehension that they would do so is a reasonable apprehension having some basis. In absence of such foundation merely because injunction is prayed for by the appellant, such relief cannot be granted. 05. In view of above, the appeal from order is disposed of. However, it is made clear that in case Defendants really intend to alienate or dispose of the property pending the suit and there is some foundation for such apprehension or belief, then the appellants are at liberty to move 4 the court. Both learned Advocates before me prayed that the trial court may be directed to dispose of the suit within six months. However, it is to be noted that the suit is of the year 2007. Parties are at liberty to move the trial court for expeditious hearing. Date:23/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ao87.09