ao141.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 141 OF 2010 Sau. Bebibai w/o Bhaiyyaji Patle :: APPELLANT -: Versus :- Smt. Prabhabai Madhukar Thakre and 9 others :: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. T. Dhurvey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 15th FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. This appeal against order challenges order dated 30/9/2010 passed below Exh. 24 in Special Civil Suit No. 1190 of 2009 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By this order, the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property, has been rejected. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before this Court, in support of his claim for possession of the suit property, had relied upon the report filed by her with police station, Aroli, certificate of police patil, note of residence of the village and the ao141.10.odt 2/3 affidavits of persons of adjoining field. The defendants filed copies of police complaint, medical report, letter of residents of the village, application filed before the Tahsildar, 7/12 extract of the field, spot inspection report and relinquishment deed. Relying upon the 7/12 extract of the suit property, spot inspection report, the pleadings and the fact that the plaintiff never called upon the defendants asserting her possession over the suit property, the trial Court recorded finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit property and the defendants have established their possession over the suit property. Hence, the application for temporary injunction has been rejected. 2. Shri Dhurvey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the appellant has filed separate documents on record to show that she is in possession of the suit property. According to him, relinquishment deed dated 11/12/2008 should have been relied upon by the trial Court to hold that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. According to him, the deed is fraudulent, although in the cause title of the deed it is shown that the relinquishment is in favour of six persons, in the body of it, it is shown to be in favour of only one person i.e. Pundlik Sitaram Thakre. He further submits that there are overwriting/corrections in the said deed and it creates doubt about authenticity and genuineness of the document. He further submits that the entry in 7/12 extract should not have been relied upon as the same was without providing any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and that it was made on the basis of relinquishment deed which according to him is not a genuine document. ao141.10.odt 3/3 3. The trial Court has held that the authenticity of the document is required to be gone into. The defendants are found to be in possession of the property on the basis of documents which are produced on record. The trial Court has on appreciation of evidence recorded finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit field. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff have been considered. At any rate the trial Court has taken a possible view of the matter which does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Shri Dhurvey, learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the suit field is the only source of income for the plaintiff, and therefore, the trial Court be directed to expeditiously decide the suit. He further submits that draft issues are also submitted. Keeping in view this aspect, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit of partition and separate possession within a period of ten months. JUDGE WWL