1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3961/2009 (Motiram Gorale and others ..vs.. Yashwant Dhapodkar and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 18, 2009 Heard learned Advocate Shri H.B.Gaikwad for the petitioners and learned Advocate Shri M.B.Naidu for respondents. The application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs has been rejected by the trial court as also by the lower appellate court. The learned trial court has found that plaintiffs were claiming continuous possession from 1984 on the basis of un-registered Agreement of Sale. The said agreement is in dispute between the parties. From the argument of learned Advocate Shri Naidu, it appears that initially the land was purchased jointly by Vithoba Dhapodkar and Keshavrao Gorle and in 1979 Keshavrao sold his portion by way of registered Sale Deed to Vithoba. The respondents/defendants are the heirs of said Vithoba and the plaintiffs/petitioners 2 are heirs of said Keshavrao and they claimed that property was agreed to be sold in 1984 by Vithoba to Keshav and Vithoba kept Keshavrao in possession. It is to be noticed that on the basis of this plea, after death of Keshavrao, Regular Civil Suit No. 48/2008 has been filed for permanent injunction. The burden was, therefore, definitely upon petitioners-plaintiffs to show their continuous possession. The courts below have found that there are some documents in the shape of revenue records which reveal only intermittent possession. However, photographs and material produced by the respondent is also looked into. The application of mind by the courts below cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. In this situation, proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 48/2008 are expedited. The court below is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31/12/2010. It is made clear that the parties shall not create any third party interest in the suit property and encumbrance in any way. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.