1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 215 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 286 OF 2010 Shri Bansi Shripad Thorve & ors. ... Appellants v/s Shri Jaising Sakhahari Rokade & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude i/by Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the appellants. None present for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. The plaintiffs have filed the present appeal contending that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing their application for interim relief at Exh.5 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Court Commissioner’s report in another suit between the parties indicates that certain crops have been grown on the suit property. The learned advocate therefore submits that 2 this ought to have been taken into consideration by the Court for accepting the case of the plaintiffs’ that they are in possession. 3. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted. Merely because there are crops on the suit land, it would not necessarily to mean that the plaintiffs have possession of the suit property and had planted the crop. In fact, the learned Trial Court has observed that the revenue records of 2004 indicates that the defendant No.1 was in physical possession of the suit property. Despite this, the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to challenge the same. 4. A submission has been advanced on behalf of the appellants that there was a sale deed between the parties and simultaneously a deed of reconveyance was also signed. It is submitted that the parties had agreed that this was a loan transaction and that once the entire loan was repaid by the plaintiffs, the land would be reconveyed to defendant No.1. 5. The Trial Court has found that there are certain manipulations, additions and insertions, etc. in the deed purporting to reconvey the property which have not 3 been explained by the plaintiffs. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs submits that all this would be a matter of evidence at the trial. The learned Judge ought to have relied on this document at the interim stage. 6. In my view, the Trial Court has committed no error in refusing the interim relief since it has observed that the document does not inspire any confidence. 7. Appeal from order stands dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 4