1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.298 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 361 OF 2009 Shri Tulshidas Nathu Mohite & Ors. ....Appellants Versus Shri Deepak Vasant Kunjir & Ors. ....Respondents. Shri Prasad S. Dani for the Appellants. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 6th MAY, 2009. P.C. Heard, Mr. Dani, learned Counsel for the Appellants. 2. The Appellants are the Original Plaintiffs and Respondents are the Original Defendants. The Appellants entered into transaction of sale deed in respect of 1 Hectare and 60 Ares out of land bearing Gat. no. 591 with Respondent No.1 to 5 for the total consideration of an amount of Rs.68,50,000/. At the time of the execution of the sale-deed, admittedly an amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- was paid to the Appellants and two post-dated cheques for the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- each were given to the them on the understanding that the same should be deposited after period of two months from the date of the execution of the sale deed. When the said post-dated 2 cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured and hence the Appellants filed suit seeking declaration that the sale deed between the parties was not valid and at any rate was not binding on them. Relief of declaration that the same is null and void was also claimed. In this suit, the Appellants filed an application at exhibit 5 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering their possession in the suit property and/or creating third party interest in the same. 3. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides granted Appellants temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from creating third party interest in the suit property till disposal of the suit. However, relief of temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from obstructing their alleged possession in the suit property was refused and therefore, the present Appeal from Order. 4. In paragraph 23 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has observed that the Appellants have put Respondents in possession of the suit property on execution of the sale deed. There is recital in the sale deed about Appellants’ handing over the possession to the Respondents. It is also observed that the Appellants could not produce any evidence to prove their possession in the suit property. On the basis of these observations, the temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering in the possession came to be refused. 5. Mr. Dani, learned Counsel, submitted that the 7/12 extract of the suit property do show the Appellants’ names to the suit property and the said names are continued even after execution of the sale deed. In my view, the entries in the 7/12 extract have got only presumptive values and this presumption is rebutted by recital in the sale deed about the Respondents’ possession. In any 3 case, the Appellants interest is protected by granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents from creating third party interest. The issue regarding the validity of the sale deed will have to be decided in full fledged trial by leading evidence. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is dismissed, accordingly. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No. 361 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.)