* 1 * A.O.1032.2010 2.5.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1032 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1255 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1032 OF 2010 Shri. Jeetpratap singh s/o. Shri. Satyanarayan Singh ....Appellant/Plaintiff v/s. Shri. Laxman Sitaram Mhatre .....Respondent * * * * Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel i/by. Mr. A.A. Garge and Ms. Prerna Silimkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel and Mr. L.M. Acharya i/by. Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 13. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. Manish Parekh and Mr. Aakansha Thakkar i/by. M/s. Purnanand & Co., Advocate for respondents no.14 and 15. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 2nd May, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit * 2 * A.O.1032.2010 2.5.2011 No. 488 of 2009. The respondents to the appeal are the original defendants who are members of Mharal Sahakari Samudayik Sheti Sanstha. According to the appellant, the suit land described at paragraph-1 of the plaint, together admeasuring 63 acres and 9 ares had been acquired by the Maharashtra State Government during the world war of 1942. As the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired i.e. for use of the army, the Collector of Thane by the order dated 28th September, 1954 granted it s lease to ’ respondents no.1 to 13. The lease was renewed subsequently on 26th April, 1956. The appellant claims that respondents no.1 to 13 executed an agreement of lease of the suit land in his favour on 1st January, 1994 and also executed an irrevocable power of attorney on 31st March, 1994. But as can be seen from the plaint itself on the date of execution of the two documents, respondents no.1 to 13 did not have any right to the property in view of the declaration issued by the Collector, Thane that these respondents were encroachers on the land since they had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the lease. The order of the Collector came to be challenged and finally by the Minister s order dated 3 ’ rd July, 2004 the rights of respondents no.1 to * 3 * A.O.1032.2010 2.5.2011 13 as lessee in respect of the land came to be re-recognised. Respondents no.1 to 13, thereafter executed registered agreement of sale in favour of respondents no.14 and 15 vide agreement dated 4th August, 2008 and then conveyed the property vide deed of conveyance dated 29th August, 2009. 2. On the above facts, the appellant filed the suit for a declaration that he is the lessee in respect of the suit land and that the deed of conveyance in favour of respondents no.14 and 15 is not binding upon him. He sought a mandatory injunction directing respondents no.1 to 15 to honour the lease deed in his favour and a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing his possession of the suit land. The appellant had filed an application for interim reliefs in the same terms as the final reliefs. The application came to be dismissed by the trial Court holding that the appellant has not established, prima-facie, his claim of possession of the suit land. Being aggrieved by the order, he has filed the present appeal. 3. The two documents essentially relied upon by the appellant are the agreement dated 25th February, 1994 executed by respondents no.1 to 13 in his favour, which agreement was got registered by him in the * 4 * A.O.1032.2010 2.5.2011 year 2009. The agreement contains a statement that respondents no.1 to 13 have handed over possession of the land to the appellant for cultivation on contract basis. This statement in the agreement according to the appellant, shows that he is in possession of the suit land. The second document relied upon by the appellant is the irrevocable power of attorney dated 31st March, 1994. This document, however, at one place indicates that the possession had been reverted to respondents no.1 to 13 since the appellant was not able to cultivate the land for dirth of agricultural labourers. At another place, the power of attorney states that the possession of the land had been taken over by the government and that one of the tasks to be carried out by the appellant on behalf of respondents no.1 to 13, on the basis of power of attorney, was to retrieve possession of the land from the government. Thus, the two documents relied upon by the appellant himself, prima-facie, do not support his claim of possession of the suit land. 4. At paragraph-8 of the plaint, the appellant claims that he has constructed a Farmhouse on the land. The plaint, however, is completely devoid of the particulars of the construction of farmhouse. * 5 * A.O.1032.2010 2.5.2011 It does not state the date of construction, the size of construction and the mode of construction of the farmhouse. Such a vague statement made in the plaint cannot be accepted as true on a prima-facie view of the matter. The trial Court, therefore, has rightly rejected the application of the appellant for an injunction to protect his possession of the suit land. Hence, the Appeal from order is dismissed. 5. With this, Civil Application No. 1255 of 2010 taken out for injunction does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]