(1) (907) AO 361/10 & 362/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 361 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 482 OF 2010 Prabhakar Dattatraya Bhanse .. Appellant Vs. Govindrao Keshavrao Kalbhor & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. U. P. Warunjikar for the Appellant. Mr. P. D. Dalvi i/b Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. K. V. Saste for Respondent No.3. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 362 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 483 OF 2010 Prabhakar Dattatraya Bhanse .. Appellant Vs. Smt. Anusuya Keshavrao Kalbhor & Anr... Respondents Mr. U. P. Warunjikar for the Appellant. Mr. P. D. Dalvi i/b Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for Respondent No.1. Mr. K. V. Saste for Respondent No.2. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 24 th August, 2011. P.C. 1. The Plaintiff has challenged the order of refusal of interim relief. He sued for specific performance under an agreement executed on 19.06.1986. The agreement is unregistered and unstamped. It (2) (907) AO 361/10 & 362/10 relates to an agricultural land. There has been a change of zone thereafter. The agreement shows that the Plaintiff has been put in possession. The Plaintiff has not shown by intrinsic evidence how he was in possession. His entire claim was based upon the fact that he was put in possession. He did not show any possession receipt. He did not show the date on which he was put in possession. The protection of his possession applied for has, therefore, been rejected. 2. The Suit is for specific performance and declaration. The specific performance is itself a discretionary relief to be granted even at the final stage. The application for injunction is also discretionary relief. Under an unregistered and unstamped document, possession not having been shown and the user having been changed the possession of the Defendants as the owners would have to be seen. The Defendants have executed sale-deeds with other parties. The land would be developed and used as per those sale-deeds. In the Suit filed by the Plaintiff in 2009 upon the agreement executed in 1986 the discretionary relief is rightly not granted. Hence the both the Appeals are dismissed. 3. Both the Civil Applications are disposed off accordingly. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)