ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8113 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8113 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8113 OF 2008 Mr.Suryakant Shankar Powar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Shri Kedari Yeshwant Mane ...Respondent. Mr.V.B.Rajure for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S.Redekar for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th December, 2008. : 19th December, 2008. : 19th December, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order whereby the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and passed the order of restrainment against the Petitioner from dispossessing the Respondent from the suit property till the decision of the suit, otherwise then due course of law. However, on next date the Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo till filing of the Petition by the aggrieved parties. This Court has also directed to maintain status-quo thereafter on 15/12/2008. 2. The suit is pending and on the other side there are various documents which need detailed scrutiny and inquiry. The Appellate Court, after considering the ( 2 ) rival contentions held that the Appellant has made out the prima-facie case to show his lawful, long standing possession over the suit property and the Respondents are has obstructed the lawful possession of the Appellant and therefore, granted injunction as referred above. 3. There are material on both the sides to justify the physical possession of the property. The question is, who is in actual physical possession of the suit property, even as a trespasser or lawful occupier. The Respondent is admittedly not owner of the property. His claim is that he has purchased the said property based on the agreement. Though agreement speaks about the full payment, yet there is a clause to show that the possession was not handed over immediately. There is no further material to show that the possession is actually handed over thereafter. There are material to show that there are extracts of tax assessment till 2007-2008 in which it is also shown to be in the possession after 1985. 4. The Petitioner, admittedly, not actually residing in the said premises as he resides in Mumbai. The Respondent was initially the caretaker of the ( 3 ) premises, later on claimed to be a tenant and lastly the purchaser of the property. Therefore, this inconsistent stand needs again detailed scrutiny. The person who is caretaker of the property, just cannot be said to be in possession of the property. Any how, this fact as recorded needs detailed inquiry. 5. There are evidence of affidavit filed on record to show the possession of the suit property. In the year 1999, the Respondents are given the open land of his house property for construction of a temple to Lord Vithal and accordingly the villagers have constructed the temple on the said site. The original owner in a given case could have objected the said construction. The fact remained that the villagers got the possession of the said land from the Respondents. 6. The Appellate Court, therefore, relied strongly on the agreement dated Nil November, 1985, which in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, just cannot be the reason to say that he is in possession of the property. The reasoning given by the Appellate Court, based upon the material available on record including tax receipts placed on record and evidence of other 3 witnesses and passed an impugned ( 4 ) order against the Respondents. 7. Taking all this into account, in my view, it is desirable that the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession of the property. Both the parties are claiming exclusive possession of the same. The Appellate Court has also granted the stay and directed to maintain status-quo. The order otherwise, should not have been in the nature status-quo with the restrainment order as passed. Therefore, taking all this into account, in the interest of justice, to avoid further complications in the matter, it is desirable to maintain the status-quo in all respect. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, however, the suit is expedited and to be disposed of within a period of one year from today. The parties to co-operate accordingly. 9. The Petition is disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)