Initially the trial Court refused to grant injunction, but on appeal the District judge had granted injunction pending the suit restraining the appellant from alienating the property.
Subsequently, it would appear mutation was effected to the revenue record on July 21.1982 to the extent of the property that had fallen to the share of the appellant who claims to have a further effected partition between the appellant and his children on July 24, 1986.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, Originally, made on March 23, 1995 in Order NO.40/95 and in MCA No.656/95 on June 30, 1995.
Without availing of the further right of revision as provided thereunder, he filed the civil suit in the Court seeking declaration of his title to the property and perpetual injunction.
It is the case of the appellant that the respondent filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act which was dismissed by the appellant Court on March 9 1994.
The admitted position is that the appellant and the respondent had jointly purchased the suit scheduled property.
It would appear that there was a petition between them as companyowners on March 20, 1982.
The revision was dismissed by the High Court.
Review petition was also dismissed.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
Leave granted.
The facts are fairly number in dispute.
