101 WP 16090 OF 2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 101 WRIT PETITION NO. 16090 OF 2024 VAISHALI NITIN ASHTEKAR AND ANR VERSUS RAMESH ANAND SATPUTE AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tejas Deshmukh (through V.C.) Advocate for Respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Ashok B. Tajane Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad (through V.C.) ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 27.08.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. The petition is directed against the concurrent findings of facts in clamping injunction against the petitioners, who are original defendant nos. 1 and 2. 3. The petitioners are the purchasers of the suit land from respondent no. 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 06.12.2022. Respondent no. 2 had purchased the suit land on 08.04.2010. It is contended by the petitioners that they and their vendor had valid title and therefore both the courts committed error of jurisdiction in granting injunction. My attention is adverted to recitals of the registered instrument to show that respondent no. 2 was the absolute owner and possession was also handed over to her, who in turn handed over possession to the petitioners. It is further contended that in the absence of any relief of declaration of title, mere challenge to the sale-deed and prayer of injunction would not help respondent no. 1. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter is overlooked by the Courts below. 4. The submissions are repelled by advocate Mr. Tajane stating that there 1/2 101 WP 16090 OF 2024.odt are concurrent findings of facts. It is contended that possession is with respondent no. 1. It is further contended that one of the parties has filed independent suit for partition in respect of present suit land as well as other properties, which is sub judice. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Both courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts recording possession of the suit land with the respondents. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings. A plausible view has been taken, which is supported by the documentary evidence. 6. Prima facie, respondent no. 2 had purchased the suit land on 08.04.2010, which can be said to be her self acquired property. She sold the property to the petitioners on 06.12.2022. Prima facie, title vests with the petitioners. However, such is not a case with the possession of the suit land. The submission as to whether such a suit without claiming any declaration regarding title would be tenable or not, needs to be gone into during the course of trial. The factum of possession, which is predominantly weighed on the Courts below, which is rightly so. 7. I find that no case is made out to cause any interference in the concurrent findings of facts. The Writ Petition is disposed of with request to the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. It is clarified that if the petitioners apprehend creation of any third party interest, it would be open for them to take recourse of law. 8. Needless to state that the findings recorded above are prima facie in nature. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 2/2