1 W.P.No.8491/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8491 OF 2011. 1. Smt.Ashrubai W/o Natha Nemane, Age 52 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Gunj Kh.Tal.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. 2. Mabubal Ahemadkhan S/o Haji Abdul Khayum Khan Durani, Age 46 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Ajij Mohalla, Pathri, Tal.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Vishwanath S/o Sopanrao Harkal, Age 45 years,Occ.Agri., R/o Goundgaon, Tal. Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. 2. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Pathri. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. ... 2 W.P.No.8491/11 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. The present Respondent filed a suit against the present petitioners for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on him and also for injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and clamped injunction against the present petitioners. The present petitioners aggrieved thereby, filed appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed findings of the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said orders in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings in the 3 W.P.No.8491/11 earlier suit would not operate as res-judicata against the present petitioners as present petitioners were not parties to the said suit. The learned counsel further contended that even the name of the petitioners are recorded in the relevant revenue record showing ownership and possession of the petitioners. This aspect has not been considered by the Courts in its correct perspective. The learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff had not sought for declaration in respect of the sale deed executed in favour of Natha and as such no further relief could have been granted to the plaintiff. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments and the pleadings. Earlier the plaintiff had filed RCS No.110/1998 against deceased Natha. The said suit was decreed and it was held that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property. Even the sale deed in favour of deceased Natha was held to be nominal sale deed and as a security. The present petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased Natha. After the death of 4 W.P.No.8491/11 Natha in the year 2005, the petitioner No.1 executed sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 and thereafter the petitioner No.2 claims his ownership and possession. There is nothing on record to show that after the decree was passed by the Court in RCS No.110/98 confirming the possession of the present plaintiff, some overtacts are committed and possession was taken from the present plaintiff. No doubt, suit RCS No.110/98 was dismissed but the Court has specifically recorded finding that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land. It is only because the plaintiff did not prove obstruction on the part of the defendants, the suit was dismissed. At this prima facie stage, the earlier finding about the possession of the plaintiff can be considered. 5. In view of the above, the view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. The Writ Petition can not be entertained if the view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 5 W.P.No.8491/11 However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Needless to state the observations made herein are only prima facie in nature and the Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on the evidence adduced. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp849111