- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3434 OF 2006 ... Shri Vitthal Pundalik Rajyadhyaksha ...Petitioner v/s. Shri Anant Vitthal Kerkar & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.M.G.Patil i/b N.M.Bhadrashete for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 31-1-2005 in Civil Misc.Appeal No.50 of 2002. - 2 - 2. Facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner is the original Plaintiff, who filed a suit seeking an order of permanent injunction against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff of the suit property. The suit property is an agricultural land. In the suit the Plaintiff applied for temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The trial court observed that in the revenue record there is no entry made showing that the Defendants are in possession of agricultural land. They are shown to be in possession of only house standing on the portion of the land. The Court also observed that as per the revenue record it is the Plaintiff who is shown in possession of the property. 3. The Appeal Court, however, on appeal filed by the Appellant reversed the finding recorded by the trial court and vacated the order of temporary injunction. 4. This court by order dated 11-9-2006 issued notice before admission to the Respondents. In the notice, it was made clear that the Court will hear the matter - 3 - finally on the date when the notice is made returnable. Respondents have been served. Affidavit of service has been filed. Respondents have not appeared. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Plaintiff. Perusal of the record shows that in the revenue record it is the name of the Plaintiff which is entered as owner and as a person who is in possession of the land. There is no entry made in the revenue record in favour of the Defendants. The entry made in the revenue record has presumptive value. Therefore, at the prima facie stage, the court has to go by the revenue record, unless the court is shown something which persuades the court not to rely on the entries in the revenue record. The trial court placed reliance on the revenue record. Therefore, it was for the Appellate Court first to deal with the entries in the revenue record and give its reasonings why it wants to make an order contrary to the entries in the revenue record. 6. Perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Court shows that the entire order of the Appellate - 4 - Court is based on assumption and presumption. In my opinion, in the face of the entries in the revenue record, the Appellate Court could not have reversed the order passed by the trial court. 7. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Appellate court is set aside and the order passed by the trial court granting temporary injunction is confirmed. Petition disposed of. ...