1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5433 OF 2009 Dagadu Dattu Butte & ors........ Petitioner versus Rambhau Dagadu Dhamale & ors........Respondent. Mr. H.G. Wakshe adv. for the Petitioner Ms. S. M.Dandekar adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 10th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present petitioners are original defendant nos.1,2 and 4 to 6. The original defendant no.7 has sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff/respondent nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the original defendant nos.1 to 6 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff also claimed an injunction with a view to restrain the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from carrying out measurement and consequent construction on the suit plot. The trial court by completely ignoring the documentary evidence has directed the parties to maintain statusquo. Aggreived by the said order passed by the trial court, the plaintiff carried Misc. Civil Appeal before first appellate court. The appellate court recorded a categorical finding in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has 2 prima facie established his ownership of the suit property by virtue of purchase of the said property from the recorded owner under a registered sale deed. The defendant no.7 is the recorded owner in possession, is the finding recorded by the first appellate court. 2. The first appellate court also permitted the original plaintiff to carry out construction in the suit property. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the gram panchayat record reveals the ownership of the present petitioners, whereas it is undisputed that city survey record indicate the ownership and possessor of the suit property to be that of defendant no.7 from whom the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property. Thus the impugned order cannot be faulted, which takes a possible view of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the record of city survey is incorrect and the same is under challenge in an appeal preferred by the present petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that in the event if the plaintiff raises construction on the suit property and if ultimately it is found that the present petitioners are the owners of the property the petitioners would be put to serious prejudice and hence alternatively it is submitted that in case the plaintiff is to be permitted to raise construction, the same should be so permitted at the risk and costs of the plaintiff. The construction ought to be subject to the final outcome of the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is ready and willing to carry out the construction on the suit plot at 3 his own risk and costs and the construction so raised would be subject to the final decision in the suit. The said statement is accepted. It is made clear that the original plaintiff shall not claim any equity in regard to the construction carried on the suit plot. 3. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed summarily. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)