1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2829 OF 2009 1. SUDHAKAR LAXMIKANT PANDE R/O. TALEGAON, DISTT. AMRAVATI. 2. VILAS LAXMIKANT PANDE, R/O. KHUMARI (KANHAN) DIST.NAGPUR. 3. ANIL LAXMIKANT PANDE, R/O.RALEGAON, DISTT. YAVATMAL. 4. BEBI SHARAD MULMULE, R/O. NAGPUR. THROUGH POA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. SMT. UJJAWALA WD/O. JAYANT BANSOD, R/O. TALEGAON DASHASHAR, TAH. DHAMANGAON RAILWAY, DIST.AMRAVATI. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri D.K.Dubey, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. Shilpa O. Tapdiya, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : AUGUST 07, 2009. 1. This petition by defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 2008 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhamangaon Railway is directed against appellate judgment by learned District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No.73 of 2008, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the 2 plaintiff’s application granting temporary injunction to restrain the petitioner from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession. 2. I have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The plaintiff is wife of cousin brother of the defendant. The property in question had been given to the defendant’s mother by her brother to whose family the plaintiff belongs. The defendant’s mother was married to a person in Ramtek, Nagpur District and the property is situated at Dhamangaon, Amravati District and was always looked after by the family of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff’s possession is that of trespasser and therefore, the observations of this Court in Vyankati Raghobaji parbat Vs. Varsha Vinod Deshpande, reported at 2005(2) ALL MR 157 would not help the petitioner. The view taken by the learned District Judge that the possession was with the plaintiffs does not appear to be improper. Therefore, it does not call for any interference. 3 The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.