1 W.P.No.8864/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8864 OF 2011. 1. Bhanudas S/o Jijabhau Pathade, Age 67 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Ghatalwadi, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 2. Sushilabai W/o Bhanudas Pathade, Age 62 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. 3. Sunita @ Barkubai W/o Jijabhau Pathade, Age 62 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. 4. Depak S/o Jijabhau Pathade, Age 21 years, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. 5. Rohini D/o Jijabhau Pathade, Age 19 years,Occ.Education, R/o as above. 6. Krishna S/o Jijabhau Pathade, Age 16 years, Occ.Education, through natural guardian mother appellant No.3 Sunita @ Barkubai W/o Jijabhau Pathade, 'Age 62 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Jayshree W/o Mohan Pathade, Age 33 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Ghatalwadi, Tq.Majalgaon, 2 W.P.No.8864/11 Dist.Beed. Now R/o Mothewadi, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 2. Amit S/o Dattatraya Ghadge, Age 30 years, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. 3. Anup S/o Dattatraya Ghadge, Age 36 years, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr. counsel instructed by Mr.Amol S. Gandhi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.12.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit for partition and separate possession. The 3 W.P.No.8864/11 petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. The present application came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred appeal to the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed said order in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Mandlik, learned Senior counsel instructed by Mr.Amol Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the District Court has not taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter. The documents on record were not considered. The decree passed in earlier suit filed by the present Respondents was also not considered. When the District Court was reversing the finding of the trial Court, it was essential for the District Court to come within the close quarters of the reasoning given by the trial Court. The learned counsel further contends that the appellate Court should be loath in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. According to the learned Senior counsel, the trial Court had taken into 4 W.P.No.8864/11 consideration all the relevant aspects and had clamped injunction against the Respondents. 5. Mr.Salunke, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the present Respondents are in possession of the suit property Gat No.165 and the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest in the said property. The mutation entry of the year 1981 would substantiate the said fact and even the subsequent mutation in the name of the Respondent No.1 after the death of her husband Mohan would make it clear that the petitioners had no concern with the said property. The learned counsel contends that when a minor has a share in the property then in such circumstances, it is not necessary to obtain permission to sell the property. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the record filed by both the parties and the orders passed by both the Courts. The District Court while passing the impugned order has not discussed about any of the 5 W.P.No.8864/11 documents which is produced by either of the parties. It has gone only on the premise that even if the case of the petitioner is to be accepted then all sharers would be deemed to be in possession and no injunction can be granted against the owner. Even the trial court while passing the order has taken into consideration the fact of the present Respondent No.1, alienating the property without permission of the Court. If a minor has a share in the property and is not an absolute owner of the property then in such circumstances, the permission as contemplated U/s 8 of the Minority and Guardianship Act, is not necessary. However, these are the questions which would be decided at the time of final conclusion of the trial. At this stage, the Court is required to consider the factum of possession. While considering the factum of possession all the relevant and attending circumstances would be required to be assessed and appreciated. This Court in its Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not be embarking upon the investigation of the said facts. The 6 W.P.No.8864/11 efficacy of the long standing record is also required to be considered. Though the entries in the revenue record are meant for fiscal purposes. The long standing revenue entries would give rise to presumption. How far the same is to be accepted is to be considered by the Court. So also, the decree passed in the suits between the parties and its effect is also required to be considered. I do not find all these aspects being considered by either of the Courts while deciding the application Exh.5 and the appeal. 7. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the District Court in Misc.Civil Appeal No.37/2011 dated 20th October, 2011 and the order passed by the trial Court below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.31/2011 dated 14.9.2011, and relegate the parties to the trial Court to decide the said application Exh.5 afresh, after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the relevant material on record. Till the decision on Exh.5 by the trial Court, both the parties shall maintain statusquo in respect of 7 W.P.No.8864/11 possession. The trial Court shall decide Exh.5 expeditiously. 8. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp886411