1 wp 6090.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 8 WRIT PETITION NO.6090 OF 2026 Vidya Krishnarao Pansare And Another. VERSUS Bapusaheb Bayaji Walunj And Others. ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.V. B. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents 1-3 : Mr. A.S. Radikar Respondent No.4 - Party In Person - Present ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : June 22, 2026 ... PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 5.12.2025 passed by District Judge, Shrigonda in Misc. Civil Appeal No.13 of 2025, thereby upholding order dated 6.2.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda, below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.21 of 2024. 2. Petitioners instituted the suit seeking declaration that agreement to sale dated 10.04.1991 is illegal and void ab-initio so also the consequential revenue entries are illegal and sought decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants from causing obstruction in their possession over the suit property. Petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed an application below Exhibit-5 seeking relief of temporary injunction. Trial Court 2026:BHC-AUG:24755 2 wp 6090.2026.odt rejected petitioners application for temporary injunction vide order dated 6.2.2025. Aggrieved petitioners filed Misc.Civil Appeal No.13 of 2025 before the learned District Judge at Shrigonda, who pleased to dismiss appeal upholding order passed by Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners endeavors to contend that, defendants are claiming right in suit property on the basis of agreement to sale of the year 1991. However, they claim to have put in possession on the basis of subsequent agreement to sale which is neither registered nor can be relied for any purpose, however, Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erroneously recorded finding of possession of respondents/defendants over suit property and refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. Per contra, leaned advocate appearing for respondents submits that there is voluminous evidence on record to demonstrate that defendants were put into possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sale and they continued to cultivate the suit land on the basis of such possession. 3 wp 6090.2026.odt 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties and respondent no.4 party-in-person and on perusal of record tendered into service alongwith impugned orders, it can be observed that petitioners are claiming relief against agreement to sale dated 10.4.1991. It is a registered agreement to sale in respect of suit property, whereby plaintiffs/petitioners’ predecessor had agreed to transfer suit property in favour of defendants. Defendants are further relying upon additional agreement to sale executed in the year 1996 whereby they were put into possession. 6. Careful reading of aforesaid documents show that consideration amount was received by plaintiffs predecessor and possession was handed over to the defendants. Apart from that, 7/12 extracts shows that defendants were consistently in possession of the suit property from 1999 to 2016. Apart from that there is evidence depicting harvesting of sugarcane from suit land and supply of the same to sugar factory by defendants. 7. Trial Court as well as Appellate Court appreciated aforesaid aspects and find that defendants have prima facie proved their possession. Per contra, petitioners could not bring on record any material showing their possession over suit 4 wp 6090.2026.odt property after date of agreements which are subject matter of challenge. 8. In light of aforesaid factual backdrop, both Courts have appropriately considered evidence on record and rendered a prima facie finding of fact in favour of defendants holding them to be in possession. The question “whether respondents/defendants have right to continue into possession and whether the subsequent agreement dated 12.06.1996 can be read in evidence are questions to be determined during the course of trial. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere in prima facie findings recorded by both Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition stands rejected. 9. Needless to state here that observations made herein- above are on the basis of prima facie consideration of material and only for the purpose of deciding present writ petition. The Trial Court shall consider and decide suit based on pleadings and evidence of parties on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without getting influenced by the observations made herein-above. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge aaa/f- …..