{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7792 OF 2010 Dnyandeo s/o Vishnu Kadam Petitioner Versus Kisan s/o Bhau Gadekar Respondent Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for petitioner Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 01 st October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 Original plaintiff – petitioner herein is assailing the order dated 18.06.2010 passed by learned District Judge-1, Sangamner in Misc. Civil Appeal No.16/2010, whereby the first appellate Court, while allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal, quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff in pending suit. 2 Plaintiff as well as defendant both are claiming to be owners of the property on the basis of sale deeds alleged to have been executed by one Bhagubai. Said Bhagubai - original owner of the property, is no more. On perusal of recitals noted in both the sale deeds, it appears that no amount of consideration was passed at the time of execution of sale deeds, however, the lady has acknowledged receipt of amount allegedly spent on her medication and for her benefit during her life time by the respective purchasers. Both the parties – plaintiff and defendant, on the basis of sale deeds, allegedly executed by deceased Bhagubai, are {2} claiming entitlement to the property left behind her back. 3 The trial Court, considering the contentions raised by the plaintiff and relying upon certain affidavits tendered in support of the plaintiff, granted injunction in his favour. 4 The first appellate Court, considering the affidavit stated to have sworn by deceased Bhagubai during her life time, which was presented before the Tahsildar, as well as affidavit sworn by her before Notary, as well as applications given by her to Police Inspector, Sagamner as well as Talathi and her statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner in proceedings bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.291/2009, found that the case put up by the defendant appears to be more probable in comparison with the case put up by the plaintiff. 5 I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. I am of the view that the reasons recorded by first appellate Court while allowing the appeal are reasonable and proper and at any rate, cannot be said to be perverse. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 6 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp779210