:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2554 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1211 OF 2003 Ms.Rohini Athalye ....Appellant/ Applicant V/s. Ravindra Keshav Kamthekar ....Respondent ====== Mr.S.A.Sawant, advocate for the Appellants. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare and Varsha Palav, advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.RANJANA DESAI, AND SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH JUNE, 2008. 12TH JUNE, 2008. 12TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The applicant is the appellant in the instant appeal. She had filed suit for partition, possession, declaration and permanent injunction. The applicant and the first respondent are sister and brother respectively. According to the applicant, she has a :2: :2: :2: share in the properties of her father and mother. The case of the brother appears to be that his deceased father and mother have willed away the entire property to him. 2. The appeal is admitted. Needless to say that whether the wills are genuine or not and whether the applicant has a share in the properties or not, will be decided when the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 3. In this civil application, the applicant has prayed that respondent no.1 be restrained from creating any third party interest of any nature in the flat which is in his possession situated at CTS No.905, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune (Flat no.3 from Sneha Villa Apartment, 905, Shivajinagar, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune-4) 4. We have heard at some length Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent. He submitted that the applicant is not entitled to any share in the suit property because their deceased father and mother have willed away the property in :3: :3: :3: favour of the first respondent. He submitted that the wills are genuine and applicant’s case that she has a share in the property, has been rightly discarded by the trial court. Learned Counsel pointed out that earlier a civil application was filed by the applicant, praying inter-alia, that respondent no.1 and others may be directed to maintain status-quo in respet of property situated at CTS No.905, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune. That application was rejected. Thereafter a review application was filed, which was also rejected. He submitted that again, the same prayer is made and therefore this court should reject this civil application also. 5. It is true that earlier civil application was rejected. It is also true that Review application was also rejected. It is pointed out that in the earlier civil application, relief sought was in respect of mere land. No building was constructed at that time. There is no dispute about this fact. Subsequently, respondent no.1 has constructed a building. Certain flats of this building are sold and he is in possession of Flat no.3. Therefore there is change in the fact :4: :4: :4: situation. It is the case of the first respondent that entire property of the father has been sold except this flat. If this flat is also sold by the first respondent or if any third party interest is created in this flat, the present appeal will become totally infructuous. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a limited order directing the first respondent not to create any third party interest in the said flat needs to be passed. Hence, the following order. O R D E R R D E R R D E R (i) During the pendency of the instant appeal, respondent no.1 is restrained from creating third party interest or changing the nature of the flat situated at CTS No.905, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune (flat no.3 from Sneha Villa Apartment, 905, Shivajinagar, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune-4), if third party interest has not so far been created or nature of the flat has so far not been changed. (ii) Prayer (b) stands rejected. :5: :5: :5: (iii) Civil Application is disposed off. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J)