-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3423 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3112 OF 1995 Praful K. Vasani & Ors. ..Appellants. Versus Indian Cork Mills Ltd & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Pradeep Sanchayati, Sr. advocate i/b Mr. Pankaj S. Shah for the appellants. Dr. Birendra Saraf i/b Hariani & Co., for respondent no.1. Mr. Milind More, AGP for respondent no.5. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 22, 2010. P. C. : 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 23rd March 2010 refusing to grant relief sought for by the appellants herein to restrain the respondents from using the FSI of the suit plot. 2. The respondents have filed suit against the appellants for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and also for cancellation of the deed of conveyance in favour of the appellants herein. In this suit, the appellants herein took out a notice of motion as defendant under Order-XXXIX Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Judge proceeded on the footing that the record of rights, Enquiry srp -: 2 :- Register, Report of the City Survey Officer and other documents do not constitute the evidence of title in the appellants and as the appellants had not produced any other document in their favour or conveyance, dismissed the notice of motion as misconceived. We are unable to agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge. Firstly, it was the respondents themselves who have approached the Court seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the property and seeking cancellation of the conveyance in favour of the appellants herein. This by itself is sufficient to hold that there is a deed of conveyance in favour of the appellants herein. Secondly, it is now settled that though the revenue record does not create a title in favour of the party whose name is entered into, nonetheless, they are to be considered for the purpose of possession. In our opinion, on this ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. The question in these circumstances is whether the appellants are entitled to any protection. 4. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel submits that the learned Judge was right in passing the order as the documents were not produced. It is further submitted that they would not be entitled to any relief other than the order of ad-interim inunction of which they have sought continuation of. 5. In our opinion, once the appellants are in possession and they have deed of conveyance in their favour, the respondents cannot be allowed to use the FSI of that plot. To that extent, the appellants would be entitled to -: 3 :- protection as prayed for. 6. Considering the above, the respondents are directed not to consume the FSI of the suit plot pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 7. Appeal stands disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.) -: 4 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1190 IN 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3423 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3112 OF 1995 Praful K. Vasani & Ors. ..Appellants. Versus Indian Cork Mills Ltd & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Pradeep Sanchayati, Sr. advocate i/b Mr. Pankaj S. Shah for the appellants. Dr. Birendra Saraf i/b Hariani & Co., for respondent no.1. Mr. Milind More, AGP for respondent no.5. Coram : F.. I. REBELLO & R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 22, 2010. P. C. : 1. As appeal is disposed of, notice of motion has become infructuous. Hence same is also disposed of as infructuous. (R.V. MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.) srp