1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1179 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1456 OF 2010 Nandu R. Yadav ...Appellant. v. Saval Prasad Baburam Yadav ...Respondent. Mr.Y.B.Yadav i/by B.T.Yadav, advs., for the Appellant. Mr.V.R.Tripathi, adv. for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff, who is respondent before this Court, filed S.C.Suit No.2133 of 2009 wherein he took out notice of motion no.1702 of 2010 restraining the defendant, who is present appellant, from causing any obstruction in his possession. According to him, during the night between 20th and 21st September, when he was away from the house as he had gone to duty, defendant entered into premises and thereby tried to oust him. Suit was filed immediately. Plaintiff claims to be in possession of hut no.34. According to him, defendant being his cousin used to reside in the same hut alongwith him but now he is trying to oust him. The defendant denied these contentions and according to him, plaintiff 2 was never in possession of the hut no.34. According to him, he is in possession of the hut for long time and the plaintiff was allowed only to cook food in the hut but he has no right over the property. The trial Court found that both the parties were in possession and were living together and accordingly, trial Court directed the defendant not to disturb joint possession of the plaintiff on the suit premises. 2 Plaintiff produced large number of documents including ration card, electoral and the identity cards issued by the election commission way back in 1995. As per the ration card issued in 1995 Baburam, father of the plaintiff, was residing in hut no.34/35. According to the defendant, he made a complaint and, therefore, ration card was cancelled. However, admittedly, ration card was cancelled sometimes in March, 2010. It means said ration card was in force for 15 years before it was cancelled on the complaint of the defendant. He had produced documents including electricity bill, ration card and electoral role alongwith the identity cards issued by the Election Commission. As per that record, defendant is shown to be in possession of the hut no.16, which is certainly a different property than the suit property being hut no.34. In view of the material produced by the defendant, it is impossible to hold that he is in 3 exclusive possession of hut no.34, about which plaintiff has sufficient documentary evidence. 3 In view of the facts and circumstances, I find no material to interfere in the impugned order. 4 In the result appeal and the application stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)