1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Deven Parikh with learned advocate Mr. D. K. Trivedi for the appellants and learned senior advocate Mr. Persy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. S. N. Thakkar for the respondent No.6. Learned advocate Mr. Nikunj K. Raval for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent No.9 learned advocate Ms. Sonal D. Vyas for the respondent No.8, learned senior advocate Mr. K. S. Nanavati with learned advocate Ms. Kunjal J. Vyas for Nanavati Associates for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. All the parties have agreed to dispose of this appeal at an admission stage and hence they are heard at length. Appellants are original plaintiffs whereas respondents are original defendants and therefore they are referred in the same capacity in this order also.

3. The appellants have filed this suit for restraining the defendants from further alienating the suit properties on the ground that they are also co-parcenors of the suit properties being legal heirs of original land owner Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel. Pedigree of the deceased Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel is disclosed at para 2 on page 3 of the plaint which confirms that Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel had expired on 07.10.1997. His wife Menaben has expired on 30.10.1997. They have two children namely, (1) Amrutbhai Nathabhai Patel, who expired on 26.05.1998 leaving behind widow and two sons and (2) Laxmiben, who is plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 is son of Amrutbhai Nathabhai Patel. Wife of Amrutbhai Nathabhai Patel, namely Pushpaben has expired on 28.09.2008 whereas their son Bhupendrabhai has expired on 16.07.2009.

3.1 Therefore, plaintiffs are daughter and grand son of deceased Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel. Therefore, plaintiff’s case is to the effect that since Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel had only two children i.e. one Amrutbhai Nathabhai Patel and Laxmiben, heirs of Amrutbhai Nathabhai Patel and Laxmibed are entitled to ½ share of ancestral properties of deceased Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel.

4. Since description and details of properties is not disputed between the parties, the same are not described herein. However it is well described in the pleadings before the trial Court as well as in the impugned order.

5. It seems that defendant No.1 has alienated some of the suit properties in favour of some defendants and in turn they have further alienated such suit properties to some other defendants, plaintiff has no option but join all such subsequent purchaser and owners as defendants. Plaintiff has also joined revenue authority and local authority as defendant since he is claiming an injunction for further alienation and transfer of the suit properties in the name of 3rd person. However, at present main dispute is between legal heirs of deceased Nathabhai Mafatbhai Patel and subsequent purchasers of the suit properties from its original owner including defendant No.6 is last purchaser and occupier of the suit property, all the defendants are defending the suit preferred against them.

6. The sum and substance of the suit and interim application for stay is to the effect that considering the ancestral properties and right of the plaintiffs as coparconers, defendant does not have absolute right to sale out the properties and part with the possession without their consent and therefore when ownership of suit properties has been changed by defendant No.1 in name of some other defendants, now till their right is being decided, defendants shall be restrained from further alienating and transferring the suit properties in any manner. To prove such contention and voluminous documentary evidence is produced on record. However, more or less it is only in the form of confirmation of sale transactions and thereby alienation of the suit properties by defendant No.1 in favour of other private defendants.

6.1 As against that defendant No.1 has resisted the suit and injunction application contending that in fact plaintiff