1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.380 of 2010 Ratnakar Shankarappa Loharkar ... Petitioner versus Onkar Govind Lingayat & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.H.N.Patil i/b M.N.Sandhyashiv for the petitioner. Mr.Nilesh Tated for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 09th June 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner (original plaintiff) impugns the concurrent orders dated 5th March 2009 and 27th October 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and District Judge, Malegaon dismissing the petitioner’s application for interim injunction. 2. The suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff relates to Gala nos.1 and 2 in agricultural produce committee, Malegaon. Admittedly, the galas were taken on lease by the respondent no.1 who is the uncles of the petitioner. Initially, the uncle was running a business and subsequently he formed a partnership firm by name “Sadashiv Trading Co.” in which plaintiff was admitted as a minority partner. 2 2. Later on, sons of respondent no.1 were also added as partners. It appears that there were disputes in the partnership and it is common ground that the partnership firm was dissolved. The petitiner then filed a suit restraining the respondents from disturbing the possession of the suit property. Respondents denied that plaintiff was in possession and contended that respondent no.1 is a lessee and in possession of the property. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have held that petitioner was not in possession of the suit property. The finding is not shown in any way to be perverse and cannot be interfered with in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. 3. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the leasehold rights of the respondent no.1 for a consideration of Rs.two lakhs. No document was produced regarding the alleged purchase. No evidence was also produced regarding payment of Rs.two lakhs by the petitioner to the respondent no.1. 4. Apart from the fact that the leasehold interest cannot be assigned without registered document, even the fact of alleged assignment is not proved by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, both the courts below have rightly refused injunction. Consequently, the writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)