(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 7276 of 2008 1. Kasturabai w/o. Tejrao Pandhare, .. Petitioners 2. Prakash s/o. Tejrao Pandhare. (Original defendants) versus 1. Dattatraya s/o. Sandu Shejul, .. Respondents 2. Subhash s/o. Tejrao Pandhare. (No.1 - Original plaintiff, No.2 - Original defendant no.3 ) .................. Mr. S.S. Naik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D. Sonawane, Advocate, for respondent no.1 caveator. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged concurrent findings of fact, arrived at by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sillod, vide order dated 26th November 2007, below Exhibit (2) 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 156/2007, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 plaintiff for temporary injunction, and the order dated 30th June 2008, passed by the learned District Judge-3, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 209/2007, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2. Mr. S.S. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the courts below have not taken into consideration the agreement of sale entered into between the petitioners and the original vendor Sahebrao and, as such, the impugned orders suffer from perversity. He further submits that the courts have also not taken into consideration report of Talathi and the Circle Inspector. 3. Both the courts below on the basis of the material on record have come to a finding that the present respondent plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It has been found that the original owner Sahebrao had sold the suit property to the respondent plaintiff on 8th June 2007 and that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the respondent plaintiff on the date of execution of sale deed. It has further been found that the 7/12 extract of the suit property also indicates this position. In so far as the agreement of sale dated 1st June 2004, on which reliance is placed by the petitioners, is concerned, it has been found by the courts below that the said agreement was not a registered agreement, whereas a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent plaintiff. The courts below have also found that according to the said documents, sale deed was to be executed prior to 25th April 2005 and there was no plausible explanation as to why sale deed was not executed prior to that date. So far as report of Talathi and (3) Circle Inspector is concerned, it has been found that the report was prepared during the pendency of suit and there was no direction from Tahsildar to make enquiry. 4. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at, by the courts below, are perverse so as to warrant interference by this court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the trial court, appellate court and this court, are limited on the point of grant of temporary injunction and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp7276