1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 296 of 2007 (Uddhav Ambade & ors. Vs. Bandu Bhaurao Deulkar) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. H.V. Thakur, Adv. for R-sole. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 17 th November, 2008 By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Warora, on 25/1/2006, granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and also that of the Ad hoc District Judge-5, Chandrapur dated 23rd November, 2006, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15/2006, confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Warora. The respondent is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he had purchased the suit property from one Maruti Ambade. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was in peaceful possession of the property, when, on 26/10/2005, the defendants tried to dispossess him. The matter was reported to the Police and a civil suit was also filed. The 2 defendants/petitioners resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendants that the suit land was the ancestral property of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and since there was no partition between the parties, Maruti Ambade, one of the ancestors, was not entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit and also the temporary injunction application. The trial as well as the appellate Court held that though there was no partition on record, there were various sale deeds produced on record which showed that the lands had been sold on 8/5/1980, 19/4/1983, 5/4/1989 and 5/4/1976 by Uddhav, one of the co-owners, and this indicated that there was a partition and the lands were separately possessed by the co-owners. The Courts further considered the fact that though the Sub Divisional Officer had cancelled the mutation entry regarding the name of the respondent, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside by the Collector on 30/5/2006 and the mutation entry no. 577 showing the name of the respondent was maintained. As the plaintiff had produced a registered sale deed and a mutation entry on record, the Courts held that the plaintiff had made 3 out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. No fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Warora, as well as the Ad hoc District Judge- 5, Bhandara. Both the Courts have considered the well settled principles of law and granted the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. The orders cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. On a request made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court is directed to expedite the suit as the suit is filed in the year 2005. JUDGE RMP