1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6381 OF 2009 Pudalik Joti Kumbhar ...Petitioner vs. Sanjay Jotiram Kumbhar & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.N.J.Patil for the petitioner Mr.Surel S. Shah for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 4, 2010 P.C. 1 By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant has challenged the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court which has been confirmed in appeal. 2 the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is claiming under registered sale deed which shows that the ownership has been transferred in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been placed in possession. He submitted that the revenue record shows the possession of the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents were never put in possession of the suit property. He submitted that the presumptive value of the entries in the revenue record has been brushed aside by the courts below. 3 I have considered the submissions. The suit relates to area of 38 ares. Out of the said area, the respondents-plaintiffs claimed to have purchased area of 30 ares by a registered sale deed dated 12th April 2005. As far as balance area of 8 ares is concerned, the respondents are claiming on the basis of a registered 2 possessory mortgage dated 21st April 1998 to which Ramu who was admittedly the original owner is a confirming party and his son Shankar is the executant. Reliance is placed on the further document dated 26th September 2000 executed in favour of the respondents by which the period of mortgage was extended till 2012. On the other hand, the petitioner is claiming on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 11th July 2007 executed by the grandsons of the original owner Ramu. There are recitals in the documents produced by the respondents to show that they were placed in possession of the suit property. In view of the recitals in the documents, the Courts below prima facie found that the respondents have established their possession. There is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the tentative findings on the issue of possession recorded by the Courts below. 4 Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. It is, however, made clear that the trial court will decide the suit without being influenced by the impugned orders and confirmation thereof by this court. 5 All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open. JUDGE