1 WP No. 5248.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5248 OF 2011 Sayyad Nabi S/o Sayyad Ismail & Others ..PETITIONERS VERSUS Nasir Kadir Ahemad Deshmukh ..RESPONDENT ... Mr. G.S. Shembole, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate for respondent sole CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 18th July, 2011. PER COURT: The present petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents had filed a suit for injunction in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court allowed the application. The Original defendants filed appeal before the District Court, the District Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment of 2 WP No. 5248.11 the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the present respondents filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Shri Shembole, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when the vendor of the present respondent was not in possession of the property, he cannot put the present respondent in possession. The vendor of the respondent had earlier filed a suit for possession, in such circumstances, the present respondent cannot claim possession. The learned counsel further contended that if the earlier sale-deeds are seen, the boundaries mentioned therein would be sufficient to show that the respondent is not in possession of any part of the land. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. The learned Counsel further contends that the Courts below, without considering these aspects, have clamped injunction against the present petitioners. 3. Shri Joshi learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has purchased 3 Guntha of land from its owner in the 3 WP No. 5248.11 year 2007 by registered instrument. The revenue authorities have, after following proper procedure, mutated the name of the present respondent in the revenue record. There is a presumption that the proper procedure has been followed. The respondent is in possession and his name is recorded. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the documents and Judgments of the Court below. Both the Courts concurrently held that prima facie the plaintiff is in possession of 3 Guntha land and have also observed that the 3 Guntha land held by the plaintiff and 7 Guntha land of defendants are separate and both the parties do not claim possession of others land. In such circumstances, I do not intend to interfere in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Without being influenced by the observations made by this Court, which are prima facie in nature, the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits. The Writ Petition is 4 WP No. 5248.11 dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM*July11