1 WP No.4488/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4488 of 2010 Mr.Jamil Ahmed ... Petitioner versus Nr,Teerthraj Changur Das & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. A.S.Gadkari for the petitioner. Mr.Chettiar i/b Mathew L. Mascarenhas & Ashok V. Kode for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 2nd August 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 13 January 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thane allowing the appeal and thereby granting injunction as prayed for by the respondent. Brother of respondent no.1 was the owner of the property. By an agreement of sale, he agreed to sell the property to the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 claims to have acquired possession of the property from the brother of the appellant. The agreement for sale is not registered. It is typed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. Under explanation 2 WP No.4488/10 to Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, if the possession of the property is delivered or agreed to be delivered to the purchaser before sale, the agreement attracts stamp duty as a conveyance. Prima facie for the purpose of proving possession of the petitioner, the agreement is not admissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped. 3. Lower appellate court has recorded a finding that respondent no. 1 was in possession of the property. He was running a business of a STD booth and also doing some engineering business in the suit property. He had produced on record receipts for payment of charges to MTNL. Considering the documents produced by the respondent no.1, the lower appellate court held that respondent no.1 had prima facie proved that he was in possession of the property. This is a possible finding of fact based on evidence and requires no interference in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of injunction cannot be faulted with. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. 4. It is clarified that all observations regarding possession made herein as well as in the lower appellate court are only prima facie and at the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced in any of the said observations. 5. The petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)