The appellate court cannot interfere with discretionary orders unless evidence indicates arbitrary or capricious decisions by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J. 

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 13 April 2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, came to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Phaltan on an application for temporary injunction (Exh. 23) in RCS No.16 of 2021, and thereby restraining the Defendants from causing obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs of the land admeasuring 3 acres out of the suit lands described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, till the final disposal of the suit.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the successors in interest of their siblings instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of their 26/96^th undivided interest in the suit lands with the assertion that Tukaram Rawaji Wagh was the common ancestor. He had two sons; Gopal, who passed away on 23 July 1965, and Balu, who passed away on 16 October 1962. Sarubai, mother of Madhav and Radhabai, was the first wife of Gopal. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the son and daughter, respectively, of Madhav. Defendants Nos.3 to 11 are the successors in interest of Radhabai.

4. The Plaintiffs assert, after Sarubai passed away, Gopal solemnized marriage with Shantabai. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and Manohar and Rukmini, were born to Shantabai by Gopal. Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 and Defendant No.17 are the successors in interest of Rukmini. Balu, the other son of Tukaram had a son Tatyasaheb, who passed away on 9 August 2008. Defendant Nos.12 to 16 are the successors in interest of Tatyasaheb.

5. The Plaintiffs assert, the suit lands bearing old Survey No.24/2, 25/2, 25/3, 25/5 and 25/7 corresponding to Gat No.182, 183, 184, 185 and 186 situated at Mauje Sangavi, Tal Phaltan, Dist. Satara, admeasuring 5 H 90 R (more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint) are the ancestral and joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Tukaram, the common ancestor, had purchased the suit lands in the name of his elder son Balu, under two separate registered Sale Deed dated 11 February 1953. Under the registered Lease Deed dated 22 March 1955, late Balu leased out the suit lands to Phaltan Sugar Works Limited, for a term of 25 years.

6. After the demise of Balu on 16 October 1962, the name of Tatyasaheb, the former’s son, came to be mutated to the record of rights of the suit lands. Late Tatyasaheb preferred an application to the revenue authorities to mutate the name of Madhav, son of Gopal; the brother of Balu, to the ½ share of the suit lands as the suit lands were the joint family properties left behind by Tukatam. Accordingly, the name of Madhav, the father of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 came to be mutated to the ½ interest of the suit lands vide Mutation Entry No.2213 dated 18 November 1962. Madhav passed away on 17 February 2017. Though the suit lands were mutated in the record of rights in the name of Madhav, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.3 to 11 and 17 collectively have ½ undivided interest in the suit lands.

7. With the amendment introduced to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, by the Amendment Act, 2012, Madhav filed an application for grant of ½ portion of the suit lands falsely claiming that he was the sole heir of late Gopal Wagh. Plaintiff No.1 filed objections. The Committee, under the Chairmanship of District Collector, constituted to grant the land to erstwhile holders, opined that the parties shall get their entitlement adjudicated by the Civil Court.

8. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Phaltan. In the said appeal, a compromise was arrived at between Plaintiff No.1 and the predecessor in tit