1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5982 OF 2010 (SUBHASHCHANDRA C. SHARMA & ANR....VS.. OMPRAKASH C. SHARMA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. U.N. Vyas, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sarda h/f. Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2011. Heard Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioners challenge two orders passed by the trial and the first appellate Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. 3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the house property. It was the case of the petitioners that the paternal aunt of plaintiff No.1 had purchased the said property in the year 1966 and she had executed a registered sale deed on 29.01.1976 of half portion of the suit property (North-South side) in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs pleaded that the document was a nominal document and the plaintiffs and the defendant were owners of the property which was allegedly sold by the paternal aunt of plaintiff No.1 to the defendant. Since the defendant had also claimed 1/5th share in the half portion of the property which was 2 bequeathed to the plaintiff No.2 the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing their possession over the suit property and from alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest therein. 4. The defendant filed the written statement and pleaded that half portion of the suit property was his self acquired property having purchased the same from the paternal aunt of the plaintiff No.1. The trial Court and the first appellate Court on a appreciation of the documents on record dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction. 5. Both the Courts rightly relied on the documents which showed that the portion of the suit property was purchased by the defendant by a registered sale deed and he had constructed a house thereon by seeking permission from the Municipal Council and the other Departments. The electric meter was in the name of the defendant and the property also stood in the name of the defendant in the revenue record. In view of the documentary evidence on record, the Courts held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in prima-facie proving their case that the property was a joint family property. The Courts further held that there was no question of obstruction by the defendant to the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. 6. In this view of the matter, the Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing their possession over the suit property. The findings recorded by 3 both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and hence, call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..