(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 46 of 2010 (Against the order dated 7-1-2010 in Writ Petition No. 97 of 2010 ) Shri Krishna Mandir, Mahanubhav Ashram Trust, Through its authorized person, Ramesh s/o. Gorakhnath Bhange, Aged : 43 years, Occupation : Service as Head Master, .. Appellant R/o. Shri Krishna Vidyalaya, (Original Paithan Road, Aurangabad. petitioner) versus 1. Sau. Shanta Amrutrao Jodrane Patil, Aged : 46 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. 15, Matoshree Housing Society, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad. 2. Kamalkishor s/o. Kaluram Bajaj, Aged : 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Govind Nagar, Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad. 3. Daulat s/o. Ganpatrao Ganorkar, Aged : 76 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. 32, Samarpan, Samartha Nagar, Aurangabad. (2) 4. Rameshwar s/o. Mohanlal Rathi, Aged : 71 years, Occupation : Pensioner, .. Respondents R/o. 32, Samarpan, (Original Samarth Nagar, respondents) Aurangabad. ....................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition, calling in question the legality and validity of an order passed by the District Judge, allowing an appeal preferred by the respondents, against an order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court. (3) 2. The learned Single Judge of this court and the first appellate court have recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The record reveals that before the learned Single Judge, it was canvassed by the present appellant, that the property has been orally gifted in favour of the appellant, whereas in the present Letters Patent Appeal, a copy of the gift deed allegedly executed in favour of the present appellant is placed on record. The said gift deed is not registered document. Various conflicting pleas are raised in the plaint, which are self- destructive, inasmuch as, the appellant had contended that under a sale deed, the property has been purchased. It is pleaded that the property was gifted to the appellant. A plea of adverse possession, as well, is taken up. 3. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the learned Single of this court and the learned District Judge recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case. 4. We have perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed summarily. (4) 6. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order, being prima facie in nature, would not weigh with the trial court while deciding the suit on merit. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa46