1 wp 7848-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7848 OF 2010 Shri Narhari Balu Sawant ...Petitioner vs. Sulochana Bhagwan Sawant & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sandesh d. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2011 P.C :- 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges concurrent orders, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, dated 18th July, 2009, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and of the CPC and by the learned District Judge-4, Satara, dated 4th August, 2010 dismissing the appeal. 2 Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts have refused 2 wp 7848-2010 the order of injunction merely on the ground that on the date of filing of the suit, the mutation entry was not in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the mutation entry was in favour of the petitioner almost for a period of 20 years and the same was cancelled only about six months prior to the filing of the suit. He submits that merely on that ground, the injunction ought not to have been rejected. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Dutt and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 429. 3 When a plaintiff seeks an order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC pending the suit, onus is on him to prove that he has a prima facie case. He is also required to satisfy the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 4 No doubt that the learned Counel is right in relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex 3 wp 7848-2010 Court which holds that the mutation entries are not relevant for the determination of title. By now, it is settled that the revenue entries do not bestow any title on the parties. However, for the purpose of determination as to who is in possession, the said entry would be relevant. In the present case, except the word of the present petitioner that the land, in question, was to be jointly purchased by the present petitioner and the husband of the defendant no.1 and it was surreptitiously purchased only in the name of husband of defendant no.1, there is no material to show that the petitioner has any title in the property. The another alternative contention of the petitioner is that he is in adverse possession of the property, in question. Except the bare word of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced any material on record to prima facie establish that he is in possession of the property, in question. In that view of the matter, the reasons given by the courts below cannot be faulted with. In any case, interference would be 4 wp 7848-2010 warranted only when it is found that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are recorded in a perverse manner. No perversity could be noticed to warrant interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. Taking into facts and circumstance, the hearing of the suit is expedited. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)