JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Godse, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated September 15, 2017 by which learned Appeal Court allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the order dated March 15, 2017 made by the learned trial Judge injuncting the respondent from interfering with the suit property.

3. Mrs. Godse, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Appeal Court has misconstrued the revenue extracts and incorrectly held that it is the respondent who is in possession of the suit property. She submits that M.E. No. 946 dated January 3, 1987 could never be construed as separate and respondent continued in possession of the said property since the year 1987. She submits that this entry relates until the year 1987. She further points out that M.E. No. 533 was already cancelled and the Appeal Court has failed to appreciate the impact of such cancellation. He submits that there is a dispute that the petitioner are title holders/owners in respect of the suit property. She submits that the respondent has placed no material on record. She submits that the Appeal Court ex