1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3748/2010 RAMBHAU SURVE ..VS.. SHANTABAI SURVE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.L. Khapre, advocate for petitioner Shri Tathod, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts that the respondent/ plaintiff was entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from disturbing her peaceful possession over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was the widow of one Kondba who expired in the year 2009. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit land was given to her in lieu of maintenance by her husband Kondba in the year 1970 and she was in continuous possession of the suit property, after the demise of her husband. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was trying to dispossess her and therefore, the suit was instituted along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that he was the adopted son of Kondba. It was also 2 pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The defendant then pleaded that the plaintiff was precluded from filing a fresh suit as she had withdrawn the previous suit filed by her, bearing Regular Civil Suit No.219/1982. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the parties tendered their documents on record and on an appreciation of the same, the trial and the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the lawful possession, the courts held that she had filed documents on record which included the agreement dated 30.9.1982 which clearly showed that those lands were given to the plaintiff by Kondba in lieu of maintenance. The courts held that the legal status of the defendant of being an adopted son of Kondba was not established and unless it was established that it could not be said that the defendant was the co- owner of the suit property. Having held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, both the courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to grant of injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her peaceful possession over the suit property. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and the prima facie findings recorded by both the courts cannot be 3 interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. On a request made on behalf of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible. JUDGE SMP