1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6596 OF 2011 Shri Chandarao Shankarrao More ...Petitioner Versus Nilesh Sadanand Mukadam & Others ...Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner herein had filed suit in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dapoli, being Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2008. In the said suit application below Exhibit 5 was filed so as to restrain the original defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the properties mentioned in the said suit. That application was rejected by order dated 16th December, 2009. Against this order, the petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.4 of 2 2010. That Misc. Appeal was dismissed by Order dated 13th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge I, Khed. This petition is filed so as to challenge the order dated 13th April, 2011. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Patil for the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge may have rejected the request for injunction in regard to the property covered by Survey No.125 of 2011. However, he should have noted that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of injunction atleast as regards old Survey No.117A of 2011 represented by Gat no.403. He submitted that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, before whom the application at Exhibit 5 is filed, as also the learned District Judge-I have failed to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective. According to him, the revenue entries made on account of the mutation clearly goes to show that the petitioner was the owner in respect of the land bearing Survey No.125/1 and hence the case of the petitioner should have been accepted. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. In the first place, perusal of the impugned orders go to show that the petitioner was 3 interested in seeking injunction so as to protect his property, namely Survey No.125/1 represented by Gat No.401. Both the courts below have considered the said submission. 4. The Sale Deed, on the strength of which the petitioners are putting up their claim speaks of only Survey No.117A. The said sale deed is silent about Survey No.125/1. If the sale deed does not convey the property bearing Survey No.125/1, the petitioner will not be able to claim ownership in respect of the suit property. It is true that the petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities and on the declaration given by the vendor the Revenue Authorities modified the Revenue Record and showed the name of the petitioner as the owner of Survey No.125/1. In my view, if the petitioners were conscious of the fact that the sale deed is silent about survey No.125/1, the proper course open to them was, seeking rectification for the sale deed. In the absence of appropriate entries in the sale deed, mere modification of the revenue record does not give ownership in favour of the plaintiff. This principal was considered by the District Court and that is how the application was rejected. In any case, there is a concurrent finding of both the courts and I do not wish to interfere at this stage. 4 Petition is required to be rejected. Hence the order. ORDER i) Petition is rejected at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)