1 wp 7888.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 OF 2011 Bhadrasen Mahaveer Prasad Choudhary .. Petitioner Versus 1. Saraswati Vashisht Arya and others .. Respondents Shri M. P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed suit for perpetual injunction. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction in respect of land Sy. Nos. 309/1, 309/2 and 309/3. The Trial Court partly allowed the said application to the extent of property bearing Sy. No. 309/2 and rejected the application to the extent of Sy. Nos. 309/1 and 309/3. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved 2 wp 7888.11 thereby the plaintiff has filed present petition. 2. Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the suit properties are Inam properties. The father of the petitioner had taken it on lease in the year 1952 for 99 years and after the death of the father, the petitioner alone would be entitled for the right. The learned counsel contends that, even 7/12 extract records the name of the father of the petitioner only. This aspect should have been considered by the Courts. The property being Inam land and the father of the petitioner having acquired it by a lease of 99 years, the same could not have been a subject matter of partition. Also the alleged partition relied by the defendants will require a proof. At this stage the possession can be seen pursuant to the 7/12 extract. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the orders. It has been observed by both the Courts that there was a partition deed/Vyawasta patra dated 01.10.1977 to which the father of the petitioner was also a signatory. The said instrument is a registered instrument, the same is not challenged by any party till date. The Courts have relied on the 3 wp 7888.11 said partition deed to prima facie come to the conclusion about the rights of the respondents in Sy. Nos. 309/1 and 309/3. The Court at this stage is only required to be satisfied prima facie and the said partition deed a registered instrument could be relied at this stage for prima facie purpose. In view of the above, the view taken by the Courts below is plausible view, same needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11