1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7660 OF 2007 Shri Balu Babu Pawar & ors. : Petitioners versus Sou Anusaya Babso Banasvade & : Respondent. Shri N.J.Patil for the Petitioners. Shri S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : 22nd July 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners impugn the order dated 25th April 2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Sangli in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.206 of 1999 by which order the said Miscellaneous Civil Appeal filed by the Respondent herein came to be allowed and the order dated 18.9.1999 passed in R.C.S No.379 of 1995 came to be set aside and, the Application (Exhibit 5) in Regular Civil Suit No.312 of 1992 came to be allowed. 2. The said Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.206 of 1999 was 2 heard along with Regular Civil Appeal No.165 of 2001 filed by the Respondent above named and Regular Civil Appeal No.166 of 2001 filed by the Petitioners above named. 3. The controversy is as regards the land bearing Gat No.162/A admeasuring 3 H and 64 R situated at village Sangali. The Petitioners above named filed Regular Civil Suit No.379 of 1995 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent herein from disturbing their peaceful possession over the suit property i.e. The entire land of Gat No.162/A. The said suit was filed on the ground that the Respondent Anusaya on the basis of a will deed dated 11.12.1992 executed by her mother Bayakka in her favour tried to disturb the Petitioner's possession on the ground that she has become the owner of the said suit property. In the said suit , the Petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction (Exh.5) which came to be allowed by the order dated 18.2.1996. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.2.1996 the 3 Respondent filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.206 of 1999 in the District Court at Sangli. The learned Adhoc District Judge Sangali allowed the said Appeal of the Respondent and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 18.9.1999 and rejected the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) in Regular Civil Suit No.379 of 1995. 5. As indicated above, the said Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.206 of 1999 was heard along with Regular Civil Appeal Nos.165 of 2001 and 166 of 2001. The lower Appellate Court while trying the said Appeals has gone into the claim of the Defendants i.e. The Petitioners herein based on three registered documents i.e. Exhibits 156 to 158 being sale deed dated 17.9.1991, partition deed dated 17.9.1991 and sale deed dated 30.10.1991 executed by Kalavati, the sister of the Respondent above named, in favour of the Defendants. The lower Appellate Court, on the basis of evidence that was before it, came to a conclusion that the said documents have been got executed fraudulently by the Defendants/Petitioners so as to take over the properties of Bayakka in the said Gat No.162/A. The lower Appellate 4 Court has observed that the consideration as per the Agreement to sale dated 17.9.1991 has also not been paid by the Defendants/Petitioners. The lower Appellate Court also expressed a suspicion in the manner in which the said documents were got registered. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, concluded that the said documents were executed on the basis of the thumb impression of Bayakka obtained by the Defendants on the blank papers on the pretext as the same were required for obtaining the permission from the Collector for the sale of the land in question. The lower Appellate Court came to a conclusion that since the sale deed dated 17.9.1991 itself being cancelled and set aside, the injunction which has been granted to the Petitioners above named on the basis of the said sale deed was not warranted. The lower Appellate Court has, therefore, recorded a finding of fact whilst allowing the said Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.206 of 1999 and vacated the injunction granted in favour of the Defendants/Petitioners. 6. In my view, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court for this Court to interfere with in 5 its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]