Kamlesh Kumar vs Shridhar

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dt. 7.5.2013 (Annexure P/1) and dt. 15.2.2013 (Annexure P/2).

By the order (Annexure P/2), the Trial Court allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the respondent/plaintiff Shridhar. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal, that has also been dismissed.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and also for declaring the sale deed dt. 30.11.1985 as void and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the land vide registered sale deed dt. 15.10.1985. He is also in possession over the said land. Earlier defendants No. 3 and 4 have lodged a report at the police station that the sale deed was forged and on the aforesaid basis a criminal case was registered. Subsequently, the plaintiff in the aforesaid criminal case acquitted from the charge. Then he came to know that a sale deed dt. 30.11.1985 was also executed of the same land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2.

The Trial Court after appreciation of documentary evidence and the facts have found that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property and he is in possession of the suit property. The defendants No. 1 and 2 were not in possession of the aforesaid property. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Trial Court granted a temporary injunction. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The appellate authority again re-appreciated the finding and dismissed the appeal. I have perused the findings recorded by both the courts. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by both the courts. Hence, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.