-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9205 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.9205 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.9205 OF 2007 Shankar Mallappa Koli, .. Petitioner Vs 1. Sau Vandana Annappa Tippe and ors. .. Respondents. Mr N.J.Patil, for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 07.02.08. DATE : 07.02.08. DATE : 07.02.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the courts below in the proceedings arising from Exhibit-5 application filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Injunction was sought contending that the suit property is an ancestral property, which the plaintiff’s husband allegedly sold it to the petitioner-defendant by a registered sale deed dated 7.6.2006. The plaintiff has two sons who, according to the plaintiff, have shares in the suit property. According to the defendants, the property was sold by the husband of the plaintiff for legal necessity. The defendant has also claimed that before execution of the registered sale deed, he was put in possession of the -2- suit property by the plaintiff’s husband by executing a mortgage deed in 2004. I perused the sale deed. It does not make any reference to the mortgage deed and to the defendants’ possession in the suit property since 2006. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, after inviting my attention to the sale deed as also the mortgage deed and the statement of the plaintiff recorded by the Collector in the revenue proceedings wherein she allegedly admitted possession of the defendants in the suit property. I perused all the documents. In my opinion, both the courts below have considered all these documents and the other material in proper perspective. For the reasons recorded in the impugned order, in my opinion, no interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned orders The writ petition is dismissed. -3- (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)