1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2011. Tulshiram Baliram Chavan and ors. ..vs.. Piyush Suryakant Bhayani and anr. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.N.R.Saboo, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Girdekar, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 23, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the courts have concurrently held on an appreciation of the material documents on record, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and the defendants/petitioners were liable to be restrained from causing any obstruction to the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. While recording the aforesaid findings, both the courts heavily relied on the partition-deed executed in the year 1969 and the mutation entries in the 7/12 extracts to hold that the plaintiffs and his predecessor- in-title were in possession of the suit property since the year 1979 till the filing of the suit in the year 2008. The courts also relied on the affidavit filed by the parties on record to 2 hold that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs was in possession of 6 hectares of land and the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property after they purchased the same by the registered sale-deed dated 30/1/2008 from Dhrupadabai for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. On a proper appreciation of the documents on record, the courts came to a prima facia conclusion that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the courts call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE chute