The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suppression of material facts and the failure to establish a prima facie case for securing a temporary injunction can lead to the quashing of the injunction order. Additionally, the finality of earlier court decrees and the principle of res judicata can influence the court's decision in ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants in both these appeals, who are original respondent Nos.3/1 to 3/9 and 4/A to 4/G, have challenged the common order dated 15/01/2021 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Ambajogai (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned appellate court') below Exhibits-34, 40, 44 and 80 in RCA No. 44 of 2016. The application Exhibits-40 & 80 in RCA No. 44 of 2016 were fled by present respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/10, who are respondent Nos. 5/1 to 5/10 in RCA No. 44 of 2016, where as application Exhibits-34 and 44 in RCA No. 44 of 2016 were fled by present respondent Nos.1-A and 2-A. Under the impugned order, the learned appellate court has allowed all the applications Exhibits-34, 40, 44 and 80 and thereby restrained the present appellants from alienating the suit lands and for creating any third party interest in the same till final disposal of the appeal.

2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned appellate court by relying upon certain photographs in respect of display of board named as 'Satwaji Nagar' on the suit property, came to conclusion that the present appellants were trying to create third party interest in the suit land by developing the same into plots and it would create complications and addition of many parties if those plots are sold.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants strongly submitted that the predecessor of appellants had in fact purchased the suit land, comprising Survey No. 97 to the extent of 16 Acres 24 Gunthas, Survey No. 102 to the extent of 16 Acres 20 Gunthas and Survey No. 134 to the extent of 19.5 Gunthas by way of registered sale deed dated 11/10/1958 and since then the suit land is in possession of the appellants and their forefathers. One Gulam Dastgir had fled RCS No. 36 of 1963 for claiming 1/3rd share in the suit land, wherein Ahemad Ali i.e. the predecessor of present respondent No.2, was party as defendant in the said suit. During pendency of that suit, Ahemad Ali died and therefore, his written statement was adopted by present respondent No.2 - Azeemunisa Begum ( in AO No.15 of 2021), who is also no more. The suit was decided on 27/11/1972 and it was held that the appellants are the owners of the suit land. In the said suit, Ahemad Ali had admitted share of the appellants in the suit land. However, Azeemunisa Begum, despite being the party to that suit, fled another suit bearing RCS No. 215 of 1994 alongwith Sayeeda Begum, claiming ownership over the suit land under one Hibanama. However, that suit was also dismissed on 20/04/2016, against which RCA No. 44 of 2016 is pending. Not only this, but legal heirs of Azeemunisa Begum, who are the present respondent Nos.2-A and 2-B, had fled third suit bearing RCS No. 3 of 2001, which was decided prior to RCS No. 215 of 1994 i.e. on 31/10/2012. In that suit, the Hibanama theory was again raised, but it was rejected by the concerned court. The learned counsel for the appellants, thus, submitted that in earlier three rounds of litigation it has been established that the appellants are the owners and possessors of the suit land since beginning and the decrees of RCS No. 38 of 2016 and RCS No. 3 of 2001 have attained finality and therefore, the contesting respondents in the present appeals cannot raise the point of ownership again and again. He pointed out that earlier to passing of impugned order, the learned appellant court had in fact rejected two applications of the contesting respondents whereby status-quo was claimed, by observing that the appellants are already declared owners and possessors by the competent civil court. Thus, he finally submits that there should be an end to the litigation which is being fought by third generation of the contesting parties and requested to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2-A and 3-A, who are the legal heirs of Azeemunisa Begum and Sayeeda Begum i.e. original respondent No