(1.) By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dtd. 2/2/2021 to the extent of clause (4) of the operative order passed by the Appellate Court, District Judge-1, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.31/2020 thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents - defendant nos. 1 to 3 from withdrawing the compensation amount vide award passed in LAR No.335/2012 and thus maintaining the order passed below Exh.5 by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed dtd. 2/7/2020 to the above extent. The effect of order dtd. 2/2/2021 of the Appellate Court is that the application for the injunction filed by the petitioners - plaintiff is allowed to the extent of granting temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit property. However, the Appellate Court has not interfered in the order of the trial Court to the extent of permitting defendant nos. 1 to 3 from withdrawing compensation amount vide award passed in LAR No.335/2012.
(2.) The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that one Mr.Baburao Kanhu Dahatonde was the owner of the following properties :
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are having 1/13th share each in the suit properties. They have also share in the compensation amount granted in LAR No.335/2012. The compensation amount is not yet deposited in the said award. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/13th share each in the suit properties and in compensation amount of the acquired land. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 contended that their mother, Kausabai was the first wife and Kalabai was the keep of Baburao and that they are only the legitimate children of Baburao. The defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the legitimate children of Baburao. It is further stated that in the year 2003, Baburao had partitioned his property in the presence of village men and in the said partition, defendant nos. 4 to 7 had relinquished their rights of the properties in favour of the defendant nos. 1 to 3. Hence, the property of Baburao was mutated in the names of defendant nos. 1 to 3.