1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3223 of 2008 Sandipan Kisanrao Tayade Vs. Anil Siddharth Narayan Tayde Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 25 th July, 2008. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the District Judge – 3 Akola, whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge who rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the present plaintiff. The present appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit alleging that he was the exclusive owner of Gat No. 92 and that defendant was obstructing the possession of the suit property. He filed application for temporary injunction. 2 Learned Judge of the trial Court found that the plaintiff had not made out a primafacie case and that mere entry in the 7/12 extract was not enough to prove the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. He particularly observed that plaintiff has other brothers. There was a partition and each brother had a share in it and plaintiff was not exclusive owner of the suit property. This fact was suppressed. The learned Judge of the appellate Court also found that plaintiff has suppressed this fact and therefore was not entitled to any injunction. It appears from the order of the Courts below that plaintiff has 5 more bothers. There was a partition in the year 1955 and each of the brothers had 1/4th share in the suit property, because two of the brothers have died. It also appears that plaintiff and defendants have sisters but their names too do not appear in record of right. Order passed by the trial Court further shows that Onkar, one of the brother of the plaintiff had 1/4th share in the suit field. Contention of the plaintiff that he was exclusive owner of the suit property was not correct and each brother had share in the property and they are cultivating their separate shares in the suit property. Said finding 3 has been upheld by the Judge of the first appellate Court. Courts below have considered the evidence rendered before them in proper perspective. No perversity is shown in the order passed by the Courts below. There is no reason to disturb the discretion used by the Courts below. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the petition. It is dismissed. J UDGE svk