1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.40 of 2009 (Punjabrao Sitaram Kathole vs.. Ramdas Supada Gawai and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions Court's or Judges order or Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.S.Deshpande, Advocate for appellant. Shri M.I.Shakani, Advocate for R.No.2. CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 23rd June, 2010 Heard finally. 1. The rejection of injunction in Special Civil Suit bearing No.1/2008 below exhibit 5 by order dated 29/11/2008, recorded by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana, is questioned by the aggrieved plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has come with the case that he had entered into an agreement of sale though it was not a written document, but there was a Thokepatra dated 20/4/2006 between him and the owner defendant no.1 which provided a transaction of sale and the plaintiff has parted with Rs.1,35,000/-. According to the plaintiff, inspite of such transaction between him and the owner, he being in possession, defendant no.1 has executed sale 2 deed in favour of defendant No.2 dated 8/10/2007, which is illegal and consequently, the plaintiff sought injunction. 3. The learned Judge on analyzing the facts and the documents of sale in favour of defenddant no.2, did not agree to the contention raised by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the affidavit of adjoining owners and also of Pralhad, who spells about agreement of sale, has not considered by the learned Judge. I quite see, it is not so done. I have read the affidavit of Pralhad, who states that plaintiff being his brother, he is in possession. The reference about agreement of sale, is again not seen the light of the day. The affidavit of Pralhad is contrary to the statement of plaintiff-Panjab, recorded in Revenue Proceedings dated 12/12/2006. The plaintiff had then accepted possession of defendant no.1. 4. The adjoining land owners state in tune with the plaintiff being naturally of same viillage, however will looses significance as purchaser is from the different village and his vendor are also staying at Ahmednagar. 5. The sale deed dated 8/10/2007 vehemently indicates the possession of the purchaser on valuable consideration. The learned Judge has also discussed report of Revenue Authority, which informs that the land at the material time was barren land. The mutation entries in respect of the land was tried to be 3 challenged before me, however entries are still in subsistence. That will have to be independently adjudicated upon by the competent authorities. 6. It is informed that in separate proceeding initiated by the defendant No.2 as plaintiff in Special C.S. No.1/2008, there is injunction operating against the appellant. 7. Taking all these factors into consideration, I find that there is no mistake on the part of learned Judge in not accepting the contention of the plaintiff believing in Thokepatra dated 20/4/2006. 8. The Appeal against Order lacks merits and accordingly dismissed. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE Andurkar