1 915caf-1866.10 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1866 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.742 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri Pradeep Kadam for the Applicant. Shri B.Unnikrishnan for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant (Original Plaintiff) submits that notwithstanding the adverse finding on issue of title, the Applicant is in possession of the suit premises and therefore, the possession of the Applicant will have to be protected. He submitted that the law is well settled that even a trespasser in a settled possession is entitled to protection of possession till the due process of law is followed. He, therefore, submitted that during the pendency of this Appeal, the Applicant is entitled for injunction for protecting his possession. 2 915caf-1866.10 2. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the father of the Applicant was the owner of the suit premises. The father of the Applicant executed an agreement for sale, a power of attorney and affidavit ( Exhibits – 39 to 41 respectively ) in favour of the wife of the Respondent (Defendant). The finding of the Trial Court is that the real brothers of the Applicant confirmed the transfer of the suit premises and the possession of the Defendant over the suit premises. The finding of the Court is that the aforesaid documents at Exhibits-39 to 41 have been duly proved and there is no challenge to the legality and validity of the said documents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was not aware of the said documents. Assuming that the said contention is correct, the Applicant could have always amended the Plaint and challenged the document. But that was not done. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this is not a case where discretionary and equitable relief of 3 915caf-1866.10 temporary injunction can be granted. Hence, the Application is rejected. 5. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, the ad-interim relief granted by this Court will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. ( A.S.OKA, J )