IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3611 OF 1997 IN SUIT NO. 3469 OF 1992 Union of India ... Appellant. Versus M/s.Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt.Lted. & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R.Rajguru with Nisha Valani for the apellant. Mr. F.Domnik Sr.Counsel with Mr.B.B.Saraf with Mr. Aziz Khatri i/b. Hariani & Co. for the RespondentNO.2. Ms. Geeta Shastri AGP for respondent No.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 25th October, 2009, in notice of motion No. 3611 of 1997. 2. In the motion, two prayers were made by the petitioner. The first prayer was for appointment of Commissioner for doing survey of the land and the other was for a temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from making any construction on the suit land and/or from creating third party rights. An injunction was also sought restraining the defendant even from approaching the authorities for sanction of building plan. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for a decree of declaration that they are the owners of the land. They have also sought a decree for possession of the land. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. We have perused the record. We find that the learned Single Judge, who has passed the order rejecting the motion has given detailed reasons for holding that the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to make out prima facie case that the appellant is the owner of the land. In our opinion, leaving all other aspects aside, one aspect is enough to hold that the plaintiff does not have a strong prima facie case to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the land. Admittedly, a mutation entry was made in the revenue record showing the State of Maharashtra as owner of the land. That entry was challenged in this Court by filing a writ petition by defendant No.1. To that writ petition the State of Maharashtra and the present appellant - UOI were joined as respondents. Though it is the case of the Union of India that it is the owner of the land and the State of Maharashtra is not the owner of the land, that entry was not challenged by the Union of India and the entry was challenged only by defendant No.2 in that petition filed by the defendant No.1 to which, apart from the State Government, Union of India was also a party. The mutation entry was set aside and the name of the defendant No.1 was directed to be entered as owner of the land in the record of rights. Appeal was preferred against that order. That appeal was dismissed with the observations that the mutation entry will not preclude the plaintiff- Government of Maharashtra from filing a suit for a decree of determination of its title to the land. Thus, an entry is made in the ROR after hearing both the parties i.e. the State of Maharashtra and the present plaintiff i.e. Union of India that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the land. The entry made in the ROR has presumptive value under the Indian Evidence Act because it is made in regular course of business. Though the presumption is a rebuttable in our opinion, at prima stage the court will be advised to go by the entry in the ROR which has a presumptive value. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the plaintiffs do not have strong prima facie case in their favour and they are not entitled to the order of temporary injunction. The learned Single Judge has referred to other relevant aspects of the matter also to record finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interim relief. We have not been pointed out anything on behalf of the appellant to persuade us to take any different view on those aspects. In our opinion the appeal has no substance. The appeal fails and is dismissed as such. 5. However, we find from the order impugned that no order has been made in relation to prayer (a) for appointment of Commissioner. We make it clear that the appellant will be at liberty to take out appropriate proceeding seeking that relief. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]