1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2010 AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2010 Nandkishore N. Yeola & ors. ... Appellants (in both matters) v/s Chandrakala A. Kothavade & ors. ... Respondents (in both matters) Mr.N.R.Bubna for the appellants in both matters. Mr.P.N.Karlekar for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court on 3.8.2009. The Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Malegaon, has rejected the application filed by the appellants at Exh.5. A counter-claim was filed by the defendants and the application at Exh.15 2 filed by them has been allowed. The Trial Court has restrained the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants herein from obstructing the peaceful possession of the defendants over the suit property which has been described in the operative part of the order. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has erred in relying on the entries made in the 7/12 extract which indicate that the respondents are in possession of the suit property. He further submits that the Trial Court has erred in not considering the affidavit filed by the person, who, the defendants claim, was cultivating the land for them. Besides this, he submits that the Trial Court has erroneously discarded the affidavit filed by the owner of a neighbouring land who had averred that it is the appellants who were cultivating the suit property. 4. The Trial Court, in my opinion, has committed no error by considering that prima facie the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The 7/12 extract which indicates the name of the defendants would, in my opinion, prima facie establish that possession of the suit property. The Trial Court has given reasons for discarding the affidavit filed 3 by the person who was allegedly cultivating the land for the defendants. Besides, the Trial Court has rightly, in my view, not accepted at the interim stage the appellants’ contention that the document executed by the parties was not a conveyance but was a transaction of conditional sale. 5. All these factors will be considered by the Trial Court when the suit is finally disposed of. The Trial Court has prima facie found and, in my view, rightly held that the defendants are cultivating the suit land. 6. Appeals from order stands dismissed along with the respective civil applications. ..... 4 5