1 wp7405.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7405 of 2010 Raosaheb Laxman Kandekar & anr. ..Petitioners v/s. Anusuyabai Laxman Kandekar & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- JANUARY 18, 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the concurrent orders dated 24th June, 2008 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik thereby rejecting the Application filed by the present Petitioner for temporary injunction and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nashik dated 9th July, 2010 thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Petitioner. 2. The suit has been filed by the present Petitioner for a relief of 2 wp7405.10.sxw declaration that the sale deed dated 20th December, 2007 executed by defendants 1-3 in favour of defendant no.1 is null and void and is obtained by practicing fraud claiming to be in possession of the suit property. The Petitioner has filed Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The same is rejected. Being aggrieved thereof the Appeal was preferred. The same is also rejected. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that sale deeds which were allegedly executed by deceased Laxman were got executed by fraud. He submits that on the very next day of execution of sale deed the said Laxman has died and as such taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, the Learned Trial Court ought to have granted an injunction. 4. The Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court after upon perusal of material placed before it have prima-facie failed to establish that he was in possession of suit property. It has been further found that the witnesses have initially supported the case of the plaintiff had turned hostile and now supported the case of the defendants. The Learned Trial Court so also the Appellate Court had refused to rely on the photographs since the photographer who has taken photographs was not examined. The scope of 3 wp7405.10.sxw interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The interference would be warranted only when it is found that the findings recorded are perverse in nature. No perversity could be noticed to warrant interference. 5. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be noticed in the approach adopted by the Courts below to warrant interference. 6. Insofar as the claim of the present Petitioner regarding an injunction creating third party right is concerned, the transactions, if any, would always be subject to Section 52 of the transfer of Property Act and as such the interest of the present Petitioner is safeguarded. 7. Petition is dismissed for no orders as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)