( 1 ) wp2636.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2010 Vijaykumar s/o. Baliram Hake .. Petitioner Versus Prabhakar s/o. Limbaji Hake & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Choudhari h/f. Mr. S.A. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. The petitioner is original plaintiff. He filed suit (R.C.S. No. 15 of 2009). He claims to have purchased half share of his vendor by name Bhagwan. The respondents disputed the claim. It appears that earlier suit (R.C.S. No. 80 of 1976) was filed by the respondents against vendor of the petitioner. It appears that during pendency of that suit the petitioner purchased agricultural land in ( 2 ) wp2636.10 question. The chief contention of the respondents was that the land bearing Gat No. 247 was not divided between vendor of the petitioner i.e. Bhagwan and his brother Shivaji, mother Sitabai and Baburao Limbaji Hake. The important question is whether there was prior division of the land in question between the vendor of the petitioner and his brothers. It is well settled that there is presumption about jointness and one who claims that there was severance, is required to be established the same. It is true that the petitioner is a purchaser of the share which appears to have been recorded in the name of his vendor i.e. Bhagwan Hake. Still, however, unless it is duly proved, prima facie, that his vendor was having a separate share on basis of alleged family partition, it will be difficult to assume delivery of the possession to the petitioner. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court decided the factum of possession on basis of the available material. The prima facie findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse. Consequently, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) wp2636.10 2. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with directions that the parties shall not create third party interest during pendency of the suit and the suit shall be expeditiously disposed of, as far as possible within a period of six months on merits of the material without being influenced by any of the observations of both the Courts in the interlocutory proceedings and by this Court in the present order. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp2636.10