1 wp 7868.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7868 OF 2011 Sudhakar Malhari Hande .. Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Anita Sanjay Hande and others .. Respondents Shri R. D. Bhalerao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. S. Bhore, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed suit for declaration and injunction. The present respondents/original defendants appeared and filed the written statement along with their counter claim. The petitioner filed an application Exhibit 5, so also the present respondents filed Exhibit 28 for temporary injunction. The Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application Exhibit 5 filed by the present petitioner and rejected the temporary injunction application Exhibit 28 filed by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby the 2 wp 7868.11 defendants/respondents filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court in appeal rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the present petitioner and allowed the application Exhibit 28 filed by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present petition. 2. Shri Bhalerao, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in the year 1965 the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has executed Usanwar Patra in favour of present petitioner, wherein it has been clearly stated that the possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioner for cultivation. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner also appeared in the relevant revenue record of the suit properties and it continued till 1977-78. The learned counsel contends that the panchanama was executed in the year 2010 and in the panchanama also it was stated that the petitioner is in possession of the property. Even the Tahsildar has passed an order to that effect. The learned counsel contends that the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 died in the year 1985. When he died in the year 1985, the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not have been entered in the year 1977-78. There is no record of alleged partition. The learned counsel contends that affidavit of 3 wp 7868.11 adjoining land owners have been filed on record to substantiate the case. All these aspects have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court, but the District Court failed to consider these aspects. In view of above, the learned counsel states that said order is erroneous. The learned counsel further states that till 2008 there was no dispute. When the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sold the property, the dispute started. 3. Shri Bhore, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supports the order. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. The petitioner claimed his right over the suit property on the basis of Usanwar Patra allegedly executed by the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1965. The said document no doubt recites about land being given for cultivation. But the petitioner himself in the pleading has stated that as the amount was not repaid and the said Usanwar Patra was not re-conveyed the name of the petitioner appeared in the year 1968-1969. Till the said date the name of the petitioner did not appear on the basis of Usanwar Patra, meaning thereby the same was not acted upon. At the relevant time since 1977-78 the names of father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 continuously appeared in the revenue 4 wp 7868.11 record. Even the document which is filed on record i. e. Form No. 12 shows the name of the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the record till year 1988-89, though the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 died in the year 1985. The only inference that can be drawn, is that same was not corrected at that relevant time. 5. The respondent has also filed the affidavit of adjoining owners. There is word against word in this regard. At this interregnum the long standing revenue entries right from 1977-78 in the possession column will have to be prima facie accepted. The District Court has taken this aspect in to consideration. Thus the District Court has arrived at plausible conclusion. The discretion needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties dehors the observations made herein. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11