A sale deed establishes a presumption of possession, and challengers must provide evidence to rebut this presumption to contest an injunction.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

1. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01/06/2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon in MA No.7/2022 vide Annexure-A.

2. Pass any other such orders as this Hon’ble Court would deem fit to meet the ends of Justice and Equity.

2. The brief facts of the case are:

2.1. The first petitioner claims to be the wife of Gadigeppa Yeligar. The second and third petitioners are the children of Gadigeppa Yeligar.

2.2. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2021 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with possession and also sought for mandatory injunction.

2.3. Vide order dated 07.07.2022, I.A.No.I/2021 seeking for an interim injunction was allowed and the petitioners were restrained from obstructing the lawful possession of the respondent/plaintiff.

2.4. Challenging the same, petitioners had filed a miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.7/2022, which came to be dismissed by order dated01.06.2023.

2.5. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this court.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.26/2013, seeking for partition, which came to be dismissed. A miscellaneous petition has been filed for revival, and until a decision is taken in the partition suit, an injunction ought not have been granted by the Trial Court or confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

4. His submission is that, a sale deed claimed to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff way back in the year 2012, a suit for injunction was filed only in the year 2021, the petitioners continue to be in possession of the said property, no injunction order could have been passed against the petitioners. On this ground, he submitted that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is required to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that, the sale deed is a public document, which has been registered with the Sub-Registrar in the year 2012. It is only when the petitioners sought to interfere with the possession of the respondent that the aforesaid suit came to be filed and the Trial Court, taking into consideration the presumptive value of the sale deed, where possession is stated to have been handed over to the purchaser, has granted an order of injunction, which cannot be found fault with. His further submission is that, the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction restraining interference with possession, if the interference is unauthorized or illegal.

6. Heard Sri. Sourabh Mirje, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.I. C. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.26/2013, seeking for partition and separate possession. A perusal of the order of dismissal dated 22.09.2021 of the suit in O.S.No.26/2013 would indicate that the suit had been dismissed for non- prosecution on account of the absence of PW-1 on several occasions.

8. A perusal of the cause title would indicate that the suit has been filed by the petitioners against the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioners Nos.2 and 3, as also against the purchaser.

9. Thus, the claim of the petitioners of having any title over the property is itself in question inasmuch as the claim for partition was made against the husband and father of the petitioners. The said suit in O.S.No.26/2013 having been dismissed for non- prosecution, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.9/2021 for