AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable. Heard by consent.
Perused the record annexed to the petition.
This is a petition by unsuccessful defendants who lost before District court who has while allowing plaintiffs'' appeal, claimed injunction against the defendants.
Learned Trial Judge had dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction. Appellate Court has allowed it.
While allowing the appeal, the appellate Court has recorded findings as follows:
Plaintiffs have established exclusive possession of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit and sale deed by virtue of which defendants claim having purchased the suit properties from some of the co owners on the face of it appears to be a camouflage to defeat the lawful possession of the plaintiff. Ld. Trial Court while denying the relief to the plaintiff did not consider the admission made by Smt. Sarah Viegas in her affidavit that the said receipts are signed by her. Ld. Trial Court also did not consider the admission made by defendants as well as by Smt. Sara Viegas regarding the possessory aspect of the plaintiff over the suit properties and thus committed material irregularity in denying the relief to the plaintiff. Hence the finding rendered by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be accepted being contrary to records and admissions of the defendants and the landlady. Hence the impugned order cannot sustain.
(Quoted from Judgment dated 23.09.2008 from pages 77 to 79 of paper book)
The challenge which is raised in ground No.(C) reads as follows:
That the Ld. District Court by impugned judgment and order has ignored material evidence indicating prima � facie case in favour of petitioners being deed of sale dated 25.7.2006 being a prima facie evidence of possession vis-a-vis so called rent receipts produced by respondents, as such impugned order suffers from material infirmity.
(Quoted from Appeal Memo from page 11 )
The receipts of rent subject matter which are according to the petitioners misinterpreted by the First Appellate Court are withheld from this Court and are not shown even at the time of oral arguments.
Even perusal of the Sale Deed which are the title document of appellants discloses that the property sold therein is not duly described and hence the Sale Deed relied upon by the defendants does not connect the defendants to the suit property.
In these premises, learned First Appellate Court was right in its approach in holding that the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property.
The impugned order therefore is not shown to suffer from the defect of being perverse or contrary to law.
Petition has no merit. Rule is discharged. Parties are directed to bear costs.