1 W.P. 9262.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9262 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05/12/2011. Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. ............................. PER COURT : 1. The present petitioners have filed Appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, wherein the trial Court has decreed the Suit filed by the present respondent for declaration and injunction. 2. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the life time of Radhabai, the property was mutated in the name of Bhagirathibai. The dispute was going on. The Court below has not considered the factum of possession. It has simply relied on the fact that allegedly there is some sale deed executed by Radhabai in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 W.P. 9262.2011 2 in the year 1988. The learned counsel contends that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. There is dispute about the revenue entries also, as such the same could not have been relied upon. 4. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence, has decreed the Suit. The District Court at this interim stage has found that the sale deed is on record executed by Radhabai in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1988, so also there is revenue record in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 regarding possession. 5. As such, at this prima facie stage, the Court has considered the observations made by the trial Court, the revenue record and the sale deed. 6. No error is committed by the District Court in passing the said order. In view of that, no case for interference is made out. 7. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9262.2011 3 W.P. 9262.2011