1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7315 OF 2009 Sau.Laxmi Laxman Patil Petitioner versus Smt.Anandi Arjun Patil Respondent P.M.Arjunwadkar for petitioner. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th January 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who is original plaintiff. and learned counsel for the respondent who is original defendant. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent are the daughters- in-law of one Krishna Rama Patil. 2. The petitioner filed a suit simplicitor for an injunction by contending that the petitioner's husband is the allottee of the suit property from the State Government and he has paid necessary occupancy price. The contention in the suit is that the name of petitioner's husband has been unlawfully deleted from the record of 2 Gram Panchayat and the name of the respondent has been unlawfully entered. An application for temporary injunction was made in the suit. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from carrying on construction in the suit property till final disposal of the suit. An appeal was preferred by the respondent for challenging the said order. The Appellate Court has interfered and has set aside the order of temporary injunction. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint and the documents which were placed on record of the Trial Court. He pointed out that the relief has been claimed in the application for temporary injunction in respect of an area of only 87.83 sq.mtrs. out of the larger property. He pointed out that there were number of documents on record to show possession of the petitioner over the said property. He submitted that the Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Appellate Court found that the allottee of the suit property is the father-in-law of both the petitioner and the respondent. In paragraph 23 of the impugned judgement, the Appellate Court has noted that from the documents placed on record it appears that the father-in-law of the 3 petitioner is the allottee who died seven years after the allotment. Therefore, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that neither the petitioner nor the respondent can claim to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. 5. It is pertinent to note that the prayer in the application for temporary injunction was for a wider injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the alleged possession of the petitioner over the suit property and restraining the respondent from carrying on construction on the suit property. The learned Trial Judge while granting the temporary injunction found that the petitioner has admitted the possession of the respondent over a part of the suit property, but the contention of the petitioner was that the respondent was carrying on construction in open space. Therefore, the Trial Court granted limited injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out any construction. The Trial Court did not grant injunction for protecting the possession of the petitioner. There was no appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court. 6. After finding that the suit property has been allotted to the father-in-law of the parties, the Appellate Court has recorded a prima facie finding that both of them could not have been in exclusive possession of any part of the suit property. It is pertinent to note that 4 the suit is simplicitor for an injunction. 7. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court was justified in denying the equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction to the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. 8. It is made clear that the observations made by the Courts below as well as this Court are only tentative observations and the suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the said observations. (A.S.OKA, J.)