gst 1 ao898.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 898 OF 2010. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1109 OF 2010. Manohar Balkrishna Bane.... ..... .... ..Appellant. V/s Suraj Ramesh Parmal & Ors. .. .... ..Respondents. Mr.K.K.Malphatak, Adv. for the appellant. Ms.Gauri Godse, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 28th February, 2011. PC: By way of present appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 26.4.2010 vide which the application filed by the present appellant-plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction came to be rejected. The appellant contends that vide development agreement executed by the original owners i.e. defendant Nos. 5 to 7 dated 18.7.2001 the rights in the suit property were given in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. It is submitted that subsequently vide agreement dated 15.2.2002 the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff transferring development rights in favour of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that however subsequently defendant No.1 was trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and as such suit came to be filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property; that the development agreement entered into between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is null and void; and for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. In the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed, however the same was rejected. Hence the present appeal. 2. Mr.Malphatak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant gst 2 ao898.10.sxw submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not correctly interpreting the agreement of sale dated 6.2.1995 between defendant Nos. 5 to 7 and defendant No.2. He submits that the document in question has been registered in the relevant record on 30.12.2000 and therefore the development agreement dated 18.7.2000 ought to have been given more weightage by the learned trial Court. He therefore submits that the learned trial Court ought to have granted injunction in favour of the appellant. 3. Ms.Godse, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 on the contrary submits that learned trial Court upon appreciation of material placed on record has rightly refused the order of injunction and as such no interference is warranted. 4. The scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is limited and unless it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is either perverse or impossible or capricious it is not permissible for this Court to reverse the same. Equally when two views are possible it is not permissible for this Court to reverse the order merely because it found that other view is probable. 5. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of material has found that the agreement of sale executed by the original land owners i.e. defendants 5 to 7 in favour of defendant No.2 was in the year 1995 i.e. much prior to agreement entered into by the said defendants in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Undisputedly defendant No.1 claims through defendant No.2 whereas plaintiff claims through defendants 3 and 4. Learned trial Court has further found that 7/12 extract for the relevant year 2007-08 would also show that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit property. As such the learned trial Court has found that the plaintiff has prima facie failed to prove that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. 6. I notice no perversity in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court to warrant interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of appeal civil application No.1109/10 does not gst 3 ao898.10.sxw survive and the same also stands disposed of.