1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3870/2008 [Arvind Ramrao Patil ..vs.. Bhagwan Dayaram Khambalkar & another] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. A. Mohta, advocate h/f Shri Khapre, adv for petitioner Shri A.J.Takkar, Adv for repsondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2009. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Akola on 10.6.2008 reversing the order passed by the trial court on 17.9.2007 granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had filed the suit against the respondent no.1 & 2. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the plot from Shri Wasudeo in 1992. Dayaram, the original owner had sold the plot to Wasudeo in 1988. It was the case of the petitioner that there was 9 hand land to the northern side of the plot purchased by the petitioner and this land was gifted by Dayaram to Wasudeo. According to case of the petitioner Wasudeo had later on 2 given this land to the petitioner. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 sold the plot on the northern side of the petitioner’s plot to the respondent no.2 and both the respondent no.1 and 2 were disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot which also included the 9 hand open land. The trial court granted an injunction by order dated 17.9.2007. The respondent no.1 and 2 challenged the order passed by the trial court in an appeal. The Principal District Judge, Akola however, by the impugned order dated 10.6.2008 reversed the order passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal of the respondent no.1 and 2. The order dated 10.6.2008 is impugned in the instant writ petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 10.6.2008, it appears, that the Principal District Judge, Akola did not commit any error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction by allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.1 & 2. The 3 petitioner could not have claimed ownership over the 9 hand land. There was nothing on record to show that Dayaram had gifted the 9 hand land to Wasudeo by a valid document of title. The petitioner could not have therefore, claimed that Wasudeo had sold or gifted the 9 hand land to the petitioner at the time of sale of the other plot in the year 1992. Since the 9 hand land was not mentioned in the sale deed by which the petitioner purchased the suit property, the first appellate court was perfectly justified in allowing the appeal and reversing the order passed by the trial court granting order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate court is just and proper and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP