1 wp9847.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9847 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondents. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. N.L. Jadhav for petitioners- original plaintiffs and Advocate Mr.A.B. Kale for respondents/defendants. 2. Advocate Mr. Jadhav for petitioners states that in August, 1994, there was oral partition and properties were separated by metes and bounds. It was reported to the revenue authorities and on 11.08.1994, the necessary entries have been taken. Trial Court rightly restrained the respondents from interfering with the separate possession of the petitioner and the appellate Court has taken too technical view of the matter by holding that such partition was not prima facie established. The mutation entries by itself are sufficient to demonstrate that such partition has been effected by metes and bounds 2 wp9847.10 orally. The support is taken of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in "2007(2) Bom.C.R. 164" ( Shekoji Bhimrao and others V/s Motiram Maruti Maratha and others). 3. Advocate Mr. Kale for respondents has invited attention to findings of appellate Court in para no.11 to support that order. 4. Alleged mutation entry dated 11.08.1994 only mentions the extent of share of each co-sharer. No doubt it also notes that each co-sharer has been placed in separate possession of his portion but then that portion has not been specified. Even if, it is presumed that it could not be so specified in revenue records, still in plaint necessary details in this respect could have been given. The appellate Court has found that such separate portions have not been pointed out by the petitioners- plaintiffs. Burden was upon them to show each portion separately so as to enable anybody to identify and locate the same. The appellate Court has found that in absence of such plea and material, the inference of partition by metes and bounds could not be drawn. 5. Possible view has been taken by the appellate Court and therefore I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The Petition is rejected. Considering the nature of controversy, the proceeding in Regular Civil Suit 3 wp9847.10 No. 213 of 2009 is expedited and the trial Court shall attempt to decide it at the earliest. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 27.01.2011 gas/wp9847.10