{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.08 OF 2010 Suryakant s/o Eknath Shete & others APPELLANTS VERSUS Shivling s/o Baliram Shete & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Amit S.Deshpande, Advocate for appellants Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. The appellants, who are original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.28/2009 on the file of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, have assailed the order dated 16.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-5. 2. The first appellant claims to be the owner of the land described as suit property and appellants No.2 to 8 claim to be the purchasers of the said land from appellant No.1 under two registered sale deeds dated 18th April 2008 and 31st December 2008, respectively. {2} 3. It appears that the present respondents have filed the said suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property; for cancellation of the said two registered sale deeds and for injunction not to disturb their possession over the suit property. Before filing of the suit one application was moved by respondent No.3, Nagnath, before the Deputy Director of Land Records for correction of entry of holding in respect of the suit land. 4. It is not disputed that Consolidation scheme was introduced in village Chakur in the year 1985. During the said consolidation scheme, the original survey numbers were converted into consolidation gut numbers. Land bearing survey No.86B was converted into consolidation gut No.287. Revenue record shows that since 1985, till the property was alienated by appellant No.1, this gut was standing in the name of appellant No.1. This fact is supported by 7/12 and 8-A extracts produced on record. It appears that on the strength of application moved by respondent No.3 before the Deputy Director of Land Records, certain Panchanamas were prepared and statements of owners of adjacent lands were also recorded. It appears that on the basis of this evidence, application Exhibit-5 came to be allowed by the learned lower court by holding that the respondents are in possession of the suit property. {3} 5. During the course of submissions learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents took me through the record which was produced before the lower court so also the impugned order. 6. To agitate prima facie case and balance of convenience the party who claims relief, must bring certain facts on record indicating that they are in possession of the property. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, to prove this factum, the affidavits of the respondents are filed in support of their claim along with certain maps showing that the properties, consolidation gut numbers 284, 286 and 287, are in a row. From this fact it is abundantly clear that the property consolidation gut No.284 came to the share of the ancestors of appellant No.1 and hence he is in no way concerned with the property consolidation gut No.287. These facts were considered at the time of framing and formulating consolidation guts. However, fact remains that if the consolidation scheme was implemented in the year 1985 and the entire revenue record stood in the name of appellant No.1 till the property was alienated by him in the year 2008, so also entries in respect of 8-A extract also indicate ownership of appellant No.1, then why the respondents kept mum for a considerable period. In absence of any documentary proof to show prima facie case, it appears that learned lower court is impressed by the sketch / touch map produced on record and in {4} view of the said map coupled with facts pleaded in the plaint, the application Exhibit-5 came to be allowed. The pleadings of the respondents are not supported by any documentary evidence, however the learned lower court jumped to the conclusion that prima faice case is made out i.e. without considering the registered sale deeds. 8. No doubt, entries in the revenue record are fiscal entries and will not decide the title, however, these entries required to be considered in the light of other evidence like entries in 8-A extract and the registered sale deeds by which the property was alienated to other appellants. Till these registered documents stand canceled and it is established as the entries of handing over the possession is merely a paper entry, without physical delivery of possession of land, it cannot be said that the respondents are in possession of the disputed property. In the premise, the impugned order dated 16.11.09 passed below Exhibit-5 requires interference. 9. In the result, the Appeal From Order is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.28/2009 on the file of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Considering the controversial question raised by the parties, it is necessary to direct the trial court to expedite the hearing of the special civil suit No.28/2009 as early as possible. {5} Therefore, learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur is hereby directed to dispose of the hearing of special civil suit No. 28/2009 as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31st December 2010. 11. The present appellants, who are defendants in special civil suit No.28/2009 are hereby directed not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the civil suit. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ao8-10 {6} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.08 OF 2010 Suryakant s/o Eknath Shete & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Shivling s/o Baliram Shete & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Amit S.Deshpande, Advocate for applicants Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. As the Appeal From Order No.8/2010 itself is allowed, the present civil application does not survive and hence disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ao8-10