1 WP 3826.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3826 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. P.R.Patil ,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.J.Choudhari,Advocate for the Resp.no. 1. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in his possession. In the said Suit, the plaintiff has filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment and order of the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. P.R.Patil, the learned counsel for the 2 WP 3826.2011 petitioner with all his persussive skill submits that the Courts below committed an error in ignoring the registered instrument of sale. The said registered document of sale recites delivery of possession. No oral or parol evidence can be adduced as against the registered document. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment in a case of S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.Rs. V/s M. Venugopal Pillai and others reported in (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases – 104. 3. Mr. P.R.Patil, the learned counsel further contends that as against the registered instrument of sale, defendants relied on an unregistered lease said to have been executed in favour of the present defendant. The said document of lease is not admissible in evidence nor could have been relied upon. When a document which is compulsorily required to be registered, is not registered, the same would not prevail as against the registered instrument. The learned counsel further contends that even the sisters subsequently have filed an affidavit substantiating the case of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below have dealt with the matter in a perverse manner. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments and the 3 WP 3826.2011 documents produced. 5. The application for temporary injunction has to be decided on the prima facie proof of possession. The Courts below have relied on affidavit executed by the present petitioner in favour of his vendor, where in the said affidavit, he has admitted that he would not claim possession of 1 Acre 7 gunthas and that he would re-convey the same. The lower appellate court has also relied on the affidavits filed by other persons, so also the fact of a Suit being filed by the vendor of the plaintiff bearing R.C.S. No. 335 of 2010 for cancellation of sale deed in which possession has been asked from the present defendant no. 1. Even the court has discussed about the panchanama prepared by the revenue Circle Inspector and the Talathi and has observed that the same does not support the case of the plaintiff. 6. The Courts below have arrived at plausible conclusion. The veracity of all the documents and the affidavit would be decided after the evidence is led. Only a prima facie finding is arrived at by the courts, which is probable one. As such, in the writ jurisdiction, no interference is required in the said concurrent findings of the Courts below. 4 WP 3826.2011 7. Taking into account the nature of dispute, the trial court is directed to dispose off the Suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six ( 6 ) months. Needless to state that the observations are prima facie in nature. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3826.2011