1 AO 150 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 150 OF 2010 Ashokrao s/o Sehshrao Deshmukh, Aged 66 years, Occupation Agricultural, Resident of Kausadi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani Appellant V E R S U S 1. Dinkar s/o Sheshrao Deshmukh, Aged 72 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Kausadi, Taluka Jintur, District Parbhani. 2. Vishwanath s/o Umakant Patwari, Aged 44 years, Occupation and resident of as above. Respondent Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Jitendra Ghuge, Advocate with Mr. Sambhaji Mundhe, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 21st January, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal from order is filed against the interim order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, refusing to grant temporary injunction to the appellant, who had filed suit for specific performance and asserted that even prior to the agreement for sale, he was put in possession of the suit land. He said that soon after the agreement for sale executed in his favour, the respondent No. 1 / the original defendant No.1 sold away the 2 AO 150 OF 2010 land to the respondent No.2. He says that in view of this, even his possession is now threatened. The learned Judge of the trial Court did not find his case prima facie believable. 3. The appellant's first point was that prior to the date of agreement, he had taken the land on Thoka basis for cultivation and had given certain amount to the respondent No.1. However, admittedly, there is no document to support his case that he was put in possession of the suit land on Gudipadwa day of 2010 or prior thereto. The learned Judge of the trial Court therefore disbelieved his case and I am not finding it erroneous. 4. Secondly, the appellant asserted that on 5th May, 2010, agreement for sale was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- in presence of two witnesses. He said, in this document, the respondent No. 1 admitted having given possession of the land to him. The respondent No. 1 asserted that this document was not willingly executed by him. He was beaten up and his thumb impression was obtained on the stamp paper. He even lodged a criminal complaint regarding the incident within two days. Although the complaint, denial and theory of coercion is rather far fetched, still the appellant's case is prima facie untrustworthy, because, in this agreement, there is a mention that sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was handed over to the respondent No.1. This statement creates a strong suspicion in the genuineness of the document. The learned Judge of the trial Court in addition to this circumstance took into account also the complaint etc filed by the respondent against the execution of the document. All circumstances if taken together, I too prima facie believe that the case of the appellant is not trustworthy. The appeal should therefore fail. The Appeal From Order stands dismissed. 3 AO 150 OF 2010 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court shall expeditiously try the suit, and, as far as possible, shall dispose of the same within eighteen months from the date of receipt of this order. The observations made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the suit finally. In view of disposal of Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 16568 of 2010 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ao/150/10/21/1/11