RATIRAM PUNDLIK KHEDKAR Vs. PUNDLIK ARJUN KHEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the original defendant No. I against an order passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Akola allowing the application of the plaintiff (non-applicant) for temporary injunction. The trial Court had rejected the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, but in the appeal the order was set aside and the learned Extra Assistant Judge having allowed the same, the original defendant No. 1 preferred the present revision application.

(2.) The defendant No. I is the adopted son of the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the suit fields and be filed the suit only for perpetual injunction praying that the defendant No. I should not disturb his possession over the suit fields, which he tried to do a few days prior to the filing of the suit with the help of some persons.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and an ex parts temporary injunction and was granted by the trial Court. When the defendant No. I put in appearance in response to the show cause notice, he stated that he was the adopted son of the plaintiff by virtue of the registered adoption dated 1-1-1971. The plaintiff was old and infirm and suffered from gangrens and as he was unable to manage the property, the management and cultivation was entrusted to him and he was in actual possession of the same. His name was also entered into the Record of rights after notice to the plaintiff and that his possession for the year 1978-79 is also shown in the crop-statement. He further stated that the plaintiff was disputing the adoption deed at the instance of his nephews and was trying to disturb his possession. He, therefore, prayed for vacation of the order of temporary injunction passed exparte against him, since he was himself in possession of the property to the exclusion of the plaintiff on the date of the suit.