1 wp2686.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2686 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Hard Advocate Mr. P.M. Gaikwad for petitioners- defendants. Trial Court as also appellate Court has concurrently found the respondents are in possession. Perusal of the appellate judgment reveals filing of Regular Civil Suit no. 101 of 2006 by the present petitioner no.1 against the father of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and rejection of temporary injunction therein and thereafter rejection of appeal by the District Court. 2. Thereafter, the appellate Court has considered 7/12 extracts and found that the respondents before it i.e. original plaintiffs are in possession. 3. Learned Counsel contended that property was admittedly belonged to one Shantabai and it devolved 2 wp2686.11 upon her from her husband. Therefore, it was her ancestral property. The petitioners are her Class-III heirs and accordingly the legal heir ship certificate was also issued in their favour. The respondents are totally stranger upon the said property. The reliance is being placed upon the panchanama dated 27.09.2008, which records possession of petitioners. 4. The trial Court as also the appellate Court have considered entire relevant material. Respondents- plaintiffs are not parties to panchanama dated 27.09.2008. In any case, the title of lands at this stage is not very relevant. 5. The scope of consideration in Misc. Civil Appeal itself was limited. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2686.11