1 83 ao.1354.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1354 OF 2010 Ravishankar Ramdeo Tiwari. ... Appellant Vs. Rajeshshankar R. Tiwari and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. J.S.Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Appellant. Mr. R.P.Ojha i/b Mr.Asit Singh for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24 th February, 2011. P.C. 1 The Appellant – original plaintiff has taken an exception to the interim order passed by the trial Court by which pending a suit for injunction filed by the Appellant, prayer for temporary injunction has been rejected. The suit has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are this younger brothers and the Respondent No.3, who is his father. The Appellant claims to be in exclusive possession of the suit premises, which is a residential tenement. The case of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that Respondent No.3 is the owner. 2 83 ao.1354.10 Respondent No.3 by filing an affidavit has supported Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon the Commissioner’s report and other documents on record in support of his case that the Appellant is in exclusive possession. He, therefore, submitted that in view of voluminous documentary evidence, the Appellant ought to have been protected. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the suit, there is a specific averment that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. Thus, the suit for injunction is filed on the basis of the title as owner. Apart from the fact that the basis of the title is not pleaded in the plaint, it is stated that only an affidavit is produced on record of the trial Court to establish ownership. 4 Prima-facie, there is no evidence of exclusive ownership of the Appellant. The Appellant is seeking injunction in respect of the 3 83 ao.1354.10 residential premises against his two younger brothers. Respondent No.3 – father has supported Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The result of granting injunction as prayed will be the ouster of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court was justified in declining to grant equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. The suit will be decided without being influenced by the tentative and prima-facie observations made by the trial Court as well as this Court. Hearing of the suit is expedited. 5 Civil Application No.1665 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]