1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2008 (Vitthal Rukhmini Sansthan, Yavatmal, Vs. Manikrao Keshavrao Gawande & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for R- 2,3 and 4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 16 th October, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the trial as well as the first appellate Courts allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 for grant of temporary injunction. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner-Trust for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-Trust from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and causing obstruction to its user. The plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court granted the application for temporary injunction and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed 2 against the said order. Both the orders are challenged in the instant petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused both the orders in detail. The grandfather of the plaintiff had, by a Will, gifted the suit property to the petitioner-Trust, but had imposed a condition in the Will that the property would be cultivated by his son and his legal heirs and the proceeds of the property would be handed over to the Trust for its use. According to the plaintiff, his father was cultivating the suit property till his death and thereafter the plaintiff started cultivating the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant-Trust illegally, for the first time in 2005, tried to effect the entries in the possession column in the 7/12 extracts in the name of the Trust. It is observed by both the Courts that on an application made by the Trust in the year 2005, the entries were effected for the year 2001- 2002. The 7/12 extracts were produced by the plaintiff on record to show that since the year 1995-96 till 2000-2001, the name of the plaintiff was shown in the column of 3 possession. In fact, the Trust had pleaded that after the death of Govindrao, the Trust came in possession of the property. Both the Courts prima facie found that the defendant-Trust could not have been in possession of the property since the death of Govindrao as all the previous 7/12 extracts showed that the father of the plaintiff was cultivating the suit property. The Courts also considered that at the relevant time i.e. in the years 2006-2007, the name of the plaintiff was shown in the cultivating column. Prima facie it appeared to both the Court that for the first time, in the year 2005, the entries pertaining to possession of the property were sought to be changed at the instance of the Trust. Both the Court also gave due weightage to the fact that Govindrao had, while donating the land to the Trust, further desired that the land should be cultivated by his son and his legal heirs and only proceeds of the property should go to the Trust. On perusal of the copy of the Will of Govindrao and the other documentary evidence on record, both the Courts rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to grant of temporary 4 injunction as he had made out a prima facie case to show that he was in possession of the property. Both the Courts have exercised the discretion on the basis of the judicial principles which are well settled. There is no reason whatsoever for interfering with the orders passed by both the Courts. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP