6 wp 17712 of 2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17712 OF 2024 Pandurang Yeshwant Mane and Ors. … Petitioners versus Rajaram Yeshwant Mane and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure with Mr. Nilesh Wable, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 12 MARCH 2025 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No.88 of 2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the order of injunction passed by the trial Court on 17 April 2023 restraining the Petitioners from alienating or otherwise disposing of the suit property or creating any encumbrances thereon, came to be dismissed. 3. Respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. The Respondent had furnished description of the joint family properties in Schedule A, B and C appended to the plaint. The properties described in Schedule A was stated to be the ancestral property. The Defendants had allegedly acquired the properties described in Schedule B and C out of the income of the joint family properties. SSP 1/3 2025:BHC-AS:12067 6 wp 17712 of 2024.doc The trial Court and the learned District Judge have returned a prima facie finding that there was sufficient joint family nucleous out of which Defendant No.1, who was in the management of the joint family properties, had acquired the properties described in Schedule B and C. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner had placed on record voluminous material to show that the Defendant No.1 had independent income from various sources and out of that income, the properties described in Schedule B and C were acquired. Some of the movable properties were purchased by Defendant No.3 by raising loan. A blanket order of injunction restraining the Defendants from using the movable properties could not have been passed. It was submitted that on account of such complete restraint, the Petitioners are precluded from entering into contract with the sugar factories to transport the sugarcane by pledging the motor vehicles. Therefore, the order of interim injunction so far as the properties described in B and C is required to be interfered with. 5. I have perused the material on record. The trial Court and the learned District Judge have applied correct principles that the income from the joint family properties described in Schedule A was prima facie sufficient to acquire the properties described in Schedule B and C. At this stage, it is very difficult to carve out the properties which the Defendants acquired out of the joint family properties and out of their separate income as alleged. SSP 2/3 6 wp 17712 of 2024.doc 6. So far as the contention of Mr. Mankapure that the Defendants are facing difficulties in entering into agreement with the sugar factories to transport the sugarcane by pledging the vehicles, the Defendants can move the trial Court and seek modification of the order with regard to the use and encumbrances on the movable properties described in Schedule C to the plaint. 7. With the aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petition stands disposed. 8. The trial Court is requested to hear and decide Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/03/2025 14:22:57