drp {1} AO No111./2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.111 OF 2009 Kundlik s/o Savleram Gadilkar APPELLANT VERSUS Bhivsen Munjaba Mungse & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. P.S.Pawar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. The appellant-original plaintiff has assailed the order passed below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.87/2008 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, thereby rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant followed by the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the pleadings of the parties, from the copies annexed with the AO. Also perused the impugned order dated 01.04.2009. drp {2} AO No111./2009 3. It appears that the appellant wants to establish right pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 21.09.1998, which is in fact silent in respect of possession of the suit property as well as where the same is situated. Admittedly, the document of agreement to sale is not a registered one by paying the stamp duty and the same is executed on a simple bond paper. There is reference of Gram Panchayat House No.238 in the said agreement to sale, however admittedly the suit construction is situated in agricultural land Gat No.263/1 at village Waghurde, Tq-Parner, Dist- Ahmednagar. Respondents No.1 and 2 claim right and possession over the suit property on the basis of a registered document dated 18.03.2008 executed in their favour by respondents No.3 to 6. Respondents No.3 and 4 are son and mother while respondents No.5 and 6 are the nephew of respondent No.4. 4. The trial court has observed in the impugned order that the appellant-plaintiff is claiming possession over the property, which is situated in the agricultural land to which Gram Panchayat house number cannot be given as the same being agricultural land and constructions in agricultural land, the entry of the same can be taken in Revenue Record and no Gram Panchayat House number is given. The trial court has also observed that there is difference of description mentioned in the document by which the appellant-plaintiff is claiming right over the suit property and the description of the property mentioned in drp {3} AO No111./2009 the document on which respondents No.1 and 2- defendants claim their right. In the premise it appears that the trial court has rightly given directions to the appellant to first get ascertain as to where the suit property is actually situated and then claim the relief. Apart from it, on perusal of the pleadings and prayers of the parties, it appears that the suit of the appellant is for cancellation of document executed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 by the remaining respondents vide registered documents. Consequently, the proper remedy for the appellant is to pray for specific performance of contract of the document executed in his favour and merely praying for cancellation of document executed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, the appellant cannot claim the relief of perpetual injunction that too when in the document executed in his favour is silent on the point that possession of the suit property was handed over in favour of the appellant. Resultantly, I do not find any fault or perversity in the order impugned in the AO. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ao111-09