910 wp 1790 of 2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1790 OF 2025 Vitthal Sitaram Bhosale ... Petitioner versus Bajirao Sayaji Gadhave and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Rushikesh C. Barge, for Petitioner. Mr. A.M.Kulkarni with Mr. Shailesh D. Chavan, Mr. Akshay Mane, for Respondent No.7. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2025 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24 January 2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.7-Defendant No.7 came to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 22 December 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Koregaon, restraining the Respondent No.7 from causing obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit land. 3. The Petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 2 June 1990 executed by the predecessor in title of Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and cancellation of a Registered Sale Deed dated 31 SSP 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.02.18 20:54:22 +0530 910 wp 1790 of 2025.doc October 2023 executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of Defendant No.7 and the consequential injunction. The Plaintiff asserted that Sayaji Gadhave, predecessor in title of Defendant Nos.1 to 6, was allotted the suit lands under the rehabilitation scheme. The suit lands could not have been sold without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. Thus, on 2 June 1990, Sayaji, the predecessor in title of Defendant Nos.1 to 6, executed registered agreement to sale the suit lands for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-, out of which part consideration of Rs.30,000/- was accepted thereunder. The Sale Deed was to be executed after obtaining permission of the competent authority, of which intimation was to be given by the said Sayaji to the Plaintiff. By a separate agreement, the Plaintiff asserted, the Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit lands. Sayaji passed away without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. Eventually, Defendant Nos.1 to 6 obtained permission of the competent authority and, thereafter, surreptitiously sold the suit lands in favour of Defendant No.7. Hence, the suit. 4. In the said suit, the Plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 22 December 2023, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to allow the application observing, inter alia, that prima facie the Plaintiff appeared to be in possession of the suit lands. 5. The learned District Judge reversed the finding opining that there was material discrepancy in the claim of the Plaintiff that he took sugarcane crop in SSP 2/5 910 wp 1790 of 2025.doc the suit land and the said sugarcane was supplied to Kisan Veer Sugar factory. In fact, during the corresponding years, in the record of rights of the suit lands, there was no entry of sugarcane crop. Prima facie, the Plaintiff never appeared to be in possession of the suit lands. 6. Mr. Barge, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned District Judge could not have interfered with a well reasoned order of the learned Civil Judge for the mere reason that there was no entry of the sugarcane crop for the corresponding years in the record of rights of the suit lands. It was urged that the receipts issued by the sugar factory found corroboration in the affidavits filed by the adjacent land holders. In any event, the entries in the revenue record are made for fiscal purposes. Hence, those entries could not have been given precedence over the receipts issued by the sugar factory and the affidavits. 7. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for Respondent No.7, countered the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner. Referencing the documents, an endeavour was made to show that the claim of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had supplied sugarcane to the factory was demonstrably false. 8. I have perused the material on record carefully. The edifice of the claim of the Plaintiff of possession is built on the receipts issued by the sugarcane factories. I will advert to the said material a little latter. 9. First and foremost, it is imperative to note that, in the registered SSP 3/5 910 wp 1790 of 2025.doc Agreement to Sale, there is a clear recital that the possession of the suit lands would be delivered at the time of the execution of the sale Deed. Mr. Barge would urge that, as the possession could not have been delivered without the permission of the competent authority, simultaneously a separate possession receipt was executed. To what extent, the said possession receipt would prevail over the registered instrument, which contains a contrary recital, would be a matter for adjudication. 10. Reverting to the receipts of supply of sugarcane, it is necessary to note the receipt of the year 1998 clearly records that the sugarcane cultivated in Gat No.385 2/1 admeasuring 40R was supplied thereunder. The suit lands bear Gut No.385/1 and 385/2 and admeasure 18R and 60 R, respectively. Prima facie, the area of the land shown in the sugar factory receipts does not correspond with the area of the suit land. Conversely, the agricultural land bearing Gat No.385 stands in the name of Pandurang V. Bhosale, son of the Plaintiff and the area of the said land is 40R. Consequently, on the one hand, in the 7/12 extract of the suit land, for the relevant years, there is no entry of the sugarcane crop, but there are entries of sugarcane crop in the 7/12 extracts of the land bearing Gat No.385 2/1, which stands in the name of Pandurang V. Bhosale. 11. The situation which, thus, prima facie, obtains is that neither the area, nor the crop entries correspond with the sugarcane receipts. To add to this, SSP 4/5 910 wp 1790 of 2025.doc the fact that the agreement to sale was executed in the year 1990 and there is no material, apart from the sugarcane supply receipts, to evidence the possession and cultivation of the suit lands by the Plaintiff, prima facie, bears upon the claim of the Plaintiff, as during such long period of over 35 years, a multitude of events would have occurred to evidence the possession and cultivation of the suit land by the Plaintiff. 12. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 13. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. 14. No costs. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 5/5