1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 2086 of 2011 Ramdas B. Markand VERSUS Smt. Panchafulla G. Maske and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29 , 2011 . Heard Shri Bhoot, the leaned counsel for the petitioner. The First Appellate Court did not commit any error in reversing the order passed by the trial court, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents were the issues Biruji and since after the death of Biruji, the respondents became the owner of the suit property, the petitioner could not have sought an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. Though the petitioner relied on the relinquishment deed, the first appellate court rightly held that the relinquishment deed did not show that the petitioner had a prima facie case as the same was not registered. The evidenciary value of the unregistered relinquishment deed could have been considered at the later 2 stage of the proceedings. The first appellate court held, and rightly so, that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan