Bombay High Court
Namdeo Bapurao Atram And Others vs Letu Bhuru Tekam on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11407
J-wp6062.22.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.6062 OF 2022
1. Namdeo Bapurao Atram,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gunjala, Mandal - Bhimpur,
District Adilabad (Telangana).
2. Keshav Bapurao Atram,
Aged about 63 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gunjala, Mandal - Bhimpur,
District Adilabad (Telangana).
3. Bhadu Kisan Atram,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Mudhati, Taluka Zari (J),
District - Yavatmal.
4. Bawara Kisan Atram
Aged about 31 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gunjala, Mandal - Bhimpur,
District Adilabad (Telangana).
5. Jeevan Kisan Atram,
Aged about 31 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gunjala, Mandal - Bhimpur,
District Adilabad (Telangana).
6. Jinna Letu Tekam,
Aged about 28 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Anandwan, Tq. Zari Jamni,
District - Yavatmal.
J-wp6062.22.odt 2/7
7. Shivram kisan Atram,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Walvat, Tq. Zari (J),
District - Yavatmal.
8. Deva Kisan Atram,
Aged about 25 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Gunjala, Mandal - Bhimpur,
District Adilabad (Telangana). : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
Letu Bhuru Tekam,
Aged about 55 years,
Occu : Labour,
R/o. Mudhati, Taluka Zari Jamni,
District - Yaatmal. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Digvijay P. Mankar, Advocate for Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is a petition filed under Sections 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India calling in question the judgment in Misc.
Civil Appeal No.1/2019, decided by the District Judge-1, Kelapur
on 24.1.2022 confirming the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Zari Jamni in Regular Civil Suit
No.14/2018.
3. The facts in brief are stated as under :
The petitioners before this Court are the original
defendants in a suit filed by the respondent herein bearing Regular
Civil Suit No.14/2018. The said suit was filed for specific
performance of agreement dated 28.1.1992 allegedly executed
between the original plaintiff and the predecessor in title of the
original defendants. Along with said suit the original plaintiff filed
an application for temporary injunction at Exh.-5 for protecting his
possession since according to him his continuous and un-
interrupted possession was obstructed by the original defendants
i.e. the petitioners herein.
4. In response to the suit summons the petitioners herein
filed their written statement as also reply to the application for
temporary injunction and resided the suit claim. Amongst various
defences raised by the original defendants, the principal defence
was regarding limitation since the agreement which was put in
question was dated 28.1.1992 and the suit was filed on 5.5.2018.
Therefore, according to the petitioners, the suit was clearly barred
by limitation. As far as possession of the original plaintiff is
concerned, it was stated that the petitioners were in continuous
possession and they never parted with the same.
5. The trial Court after hearing the parties at length and
after considering the material on record and more particularly
entry in revenue records dating back in the year 1992 allowed the
application and restrained the defendants from causing any
obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants challenged the
same by filing Misc. Civil Appeal bearing M.C.A. No. 1/2019 which
also came to be rejected by the Appellate Court vide its judgment
dated 24.1.2022. Thus, the present petition is filed challenging the
order of the trial Court as also by the lower Appellate Court.
6. I have heard Mr. Mahesh I. Dhatrak, learned counsel
for Petitioners and Mr. Digvijay P. Mankar, learned counsel for
respondent.
7. Mr. Mahesh Dhatrak, counsel for the petitioners
contends that the order of the trial Court and confirmed by the
Appellate Court is absolutely perverse since there is no averments
in the agreement in question regarding handing over of possession.
Furthermore, he submits that the revenue records are standing in
the name of the petitioners negating the conclusions erred by the
trial Court and the lower Appellate Court.
8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent
argues that the both the Courts have concurrently held in his favour
and no perversity is shown in the same warranting interference in
writ jurisdiction.
9. I have heard the contentions canvassed by the learned
counsels and I have perused the materials on record. At the outset
it is worthwhile to mention that the suit and the order passed in the
same is at the stage of temporary injunction and the parties are yet
to go on trial to crystallize their rights, if any. It is a settled
principle of law that at the stage of deciding an application for
temporary injunction the Court is not supposed to hold mini trial
and only prima facie material supporting or negating the claim of
the respective parties is to be assessed.
10. In the light of these settled principles if the material
placed before me is analyzed, the trial Court recorded a finding in
para 14 that since agreement of sale dated 28.1.1992 the plaintiff is
in continuous possession of the suit land and the revenue records
supports his contention. The trial Court has further observed that
as submitted by the plaintiff since the year 2010 the Government
has stopped taking entries of cultivation (Pere-Patrak) in the 7/12
extract and since the year 1992 to 2009 the suit land is shown in
the continuous cultivation of the plaintiff. The entries of revenue
records may not be a document of title but they have a certain
presumptive value as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code. Admittedly, the revenue records filed by the
defendants i.e. the petitioners herein are after year 2010. The
names of defendants are bound to appear in the said 7/12 extract,
since they are the owners of the property, since their predecessor in
title and after his death they are the owner of the property. On the
basis of these findings, the trial Court has allowed the application
for temporary injunction.
11. The lower Appellate Court looking at the narrow scope
of interference in Appellate Jurisdiction in an appeal against a
discretionary order in para 15 has recorded a prima facie finding
that there is no material documents filed by the defendants to show
that on 4.6.2018 they were in actual possession of the suit property.
The explanation regarding the names of the plaintiff appearing in
revenue records till 2009 and thereafter due to the practice
regarding not to mention the name of the cultivator in the revenue
records has also found favour with the lower Appellate Court.
12. Furthermore, the fact that the agreement in question is
not registered is also of no assistance to the petitioners since the
agreement is executed in the year 1992 and the requirement of
registering the agreement in question when coupled with delivery
of possession as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act is
from the year 2001. All the other grounds raised in the petition like
the genuineness of the agreement, the transaction being that of a
loan are the defences which are considered on merits at the time of
trial. It is thus clear that there are concurrent finding of facts
regarding the plaintiff prima facie being in possession of the suit
land. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, this Court can only interfere if there is
perversity in the findings.
13. From the above discussion and from the perusal of the
both the orders passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower
Appellate Court it cannot be said that there is some perversity
warranting interference in supervisory writ jurisdiction of this
Court. The petition is, therefore, meritless and is liable to be
dismissed.
ORDER
(i) The petition is dismissed.
(ii) Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(iii) Rule stands discharged.
(NANDESH DESHPANDE, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/11/2025 17:12:56
