1 WP 5592.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5592 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.V.H.Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.C.Garud, Advocate for the Resp.No.1 ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent had filed Suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. Along with the Suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal, confirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said judgment in the present Writ Petition. 2 WP 5592.2011 2. Mr. Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Courts below have not properly considered the documents on record. The factum of possession ought to have been considered. The Circle Inspector has submitted the report and also the panchanama has been drawn, which categorically shows the possession of the present petitioner. These documents are not considered. The Courts have gone on the premise that notice of the said panchanama has not been issued to the plaintiff, but the said panchanama is dated 30/12/2009 and the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property on 3/2/2010. As such, no question arises of the plaintiff being issued any notice in respect of the same. The learned counsel further contends that the sale deed by the present petitioner in favour of Barku in the year 2002 was the security transaction and no possession was delivered pursuant to the said sale deed. This aspect has not been considered by the Court. Even the present petitioner has filed the Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 64 of 2009 against said Barku for declaration and injunction. Earlier, the Suit was filed by Barku claiming injunction, which also is withdrawn by Barku. All these facts are not considered by the Courts properly. The learned counsel further contends that even the entry in the 7/12 extract in 3 WP 5592.2011 the possession column shows that the land which is said to have been purchased by the plaintiff is barren. In such circumstances also, it can not be said that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The learned counsel to substantiate his contentions, relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ramakant R. Harmalkar and others V/s Myra Muriel Loboe Paul reported in 2010 ( 4 ) Mh.L.J. 414. 3. Mr. N.C.Garud, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 supports the Order passed and submits that both the Courts on evaluation of the documents, have concurrently held that the plaintiff has prima facie proved his possession. 4. At this stage, the Court is required to consider the prima facie case of the parties. The existence and execution of the registered sale deed by the present petitioner in favour of Barku in the year 2002 is not disputed. The Courts have also considered the recital in the said sale deed about the delivery of possession. Not only that, pursuant to the said sale deed, name of Barku was recorded in the 7/12 extract. Thereafter, the present respondent has purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 3/2/2010 and pursuant to the said registered instrument, the name of the 4 WP 5592.2011 present respondent is also recorded in the relevant record. The registered instrument speaks about the delivery of possession, even the relevant revenue records which are maintained in the official course of business/duties also recites about the said registered instrument being acted upon. Then, in such circumstances, the Courts would be inclined to accept the said documents and the recitals therein. The Judgment in the case of Ramakant R. Harmalkar referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be of any assistance to the petitioner in view of the fact that in the said case also, this Court has held that there was an agreement of sale and power of attorney relating to suit property and the plaintiff was silent. The plaintiff relied on the revenue record to claim possession, was silent about these documents, about the agreement of sale and the power of attorney i.e. the documents executed. In the present case also, the documents i.e. the registered instruments are in favour of the present respondents. 5. The panchanama and the report of Circle Inspector based thereon, has rightly not been relied by the Courts below as there is nothing on record to show that prior to the panchanama being conducted, any notice was issued to the 5 WP 5592.2011 predecessor in title of the present respondents. 6. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible view . The Writ Petition can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view is also possible. 7. In light of the above, the Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5592.2011