1 WP 3980/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3980 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 6TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 23rd March 2011 passed by the District Judge-I, Raigad, Alibag allowing the Misc. Appeal and thereby vacating the injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner. 2 WP 3980/2011 3. The respondents are the original defendants. The respondent no.1 was the original owner of the land. By a registered sale deed dated 22nd February 2008, he sold the suit land to the respondent nos.2 and 3. Under the sale deed, he also delivered the possession of the suit land to respondent nos.2 and 3. After about 4 months of the sale deed, the present petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and for an injunction restraining the respondent nos.2 and 3 from disturbing his possession. On the basis of the affidavits of the witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land and the respondent nos.2 and 3 were in possession of the suit land. The question 3 WP 3980/2011 who was in possession of the suit land is a question of fact and the finding is arrived at on appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any perversity, the finding of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the trial Court is a possible finding of fact. The trial Court’s finding was based only on the basis of the affidavits of some witnesses. There was no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. Records of right show the name of the respondents. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order especially in view of the fact that the order is an interlocutory order. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)