ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.215 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.215 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.215 OF 2008 Chhotlal Ramkaran Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Kamlesh Mali i/by Mr.R.A.Thorat for the Appellants. Mr.Rajiv Narula a/w A.Das i/by M/s.Jhangiani Narola & Associates for Respondent Nos.2,4 and 5. Ms.Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 26th September, 2008. : 26th September, 2008. : 26th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties. 2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff in Long Cause Suit No.3198 of 2007. The suit is filed against the Respondent for declaration that the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 have no subsisting right to sell and transfer their right, title and interest to and in favour of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and as such the consent terms dated 29/08/2006 in High Court Suit No.2226 of 2006 have not binding upon the Appellant. ( 2 ) Declaration was also sought against the Respondent Nos.2 to 9 to the effect that they have no right and authority to surrender the suit land or any part thereof. Injunction permanently restraining the Respondent No.1 from taking possession of the suit land or any part thereof, as also prayed for. 3. The Petitioner filed Notice of Motion No.2985 of 2007 in Long Cause Suit No.3198 of 2007. By prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion temporary injunction was claimed restraining the Respondent No.1 from entering or remaining upon and taking possession of the suit land. Under prayer (b) injunction is claimed against Respondent Nos.2 to 9 restraining them from disturbing the possession of the Appellants. 4. The Appellants claim their right on the basis of agreement of sell dated 30th August, 1968. The Appellants also relied upon demolition proceedings which were ultimately concluded in the year 2006. The main bone of the contention of the Appellants is that though structure is demolished, he is in possession of land below the structure and therefore, he cannot be dispossessed without following the process of law. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides ( 3 ) held that the above agreement of sell is of no use. Inasmuch as earlier the Appellant filed series of the suits on the basis of agreement of sale and failed. The Trial Court also held that the structure standing on the suit land was already demolished in the year 2006 and the possession of suit land was taken by the Respondent No.1 B.M.C., for road widening. The Trial Court categorically recorded the findings that the Respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit property. In my view, the Appellants neither proved the prima-facie case nor proved prima-facie possession over the suit land. 5. In that view of the matter no interference is called for in the present Appeal from Order and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( R. V. MORE, R. V. MORE, R. V. MORE, J.) J.) J.)