1 cao343-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2011 IN CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.31143 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2011 with CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.31143 OF 2011 Shri Govind Tatyaba Mandave & Ors. .. Applicant/Petitioner v/s. Smt.Kaplana R. Mandave & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Avinash Fatangare for the Applicant/ Petitioner Mr.S.R.Agarkar i/b. U.B.Nighot for the Respondent CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. This application seeks stay to the effect of the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in Special Civil Suit NO.145 of 2007 whereby the learned Judge has directed the applicants-original defendants to hand over 2/15th share in certain agricultural land to the respondent no.1 original plaintiff and to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of 2 cao343-11.sxw decree till the property is handed over to her. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants-original defendants offered to hand over the share of the respondent no.1 to her immediately without prejudice to his right in the appeal. He said that in that event, the applicant- original defendants be spared from paying Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance. The learned Judge, in the operative part of the impugned order directed the applicant defendants to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of order till actual delivery of possession of the property. So, apparently this order of Rs.8000/- maintenance is for a limited period between the date of decree till the possession is delivered. In view of this peculiar order, the offer made by the applicant-defendants is quite acceptable and same deserves to be granted. They shall pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of the decree till the possession is handed over to the respondent no.1. They shall obtain receipt of delivery of possession from the respondent no.1 and produce it before the Court in compliance of this order. 2. On the same day, the respondent no.1-original plaintiff should give undertaking in writing to the court that in case she fails to get a decree in this appeal, she would deliver the possession of the suit 3 cao343-11.sxw property back to the original defendants. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-original plaintiff asserted that besides the amount of maintenance ordered by the learned Judge of the Lower Court, his client is also entitled to maintenance endentelite during the pendency of the appeal. However, I do not find any application to that effect on record and liberty is given to the respondent no.1 original plaintiff to make such application. 4. Both the parties should not create third party rights in the suit property during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Since the appeal is admitted, cross objection is also admitted. Civil Application is disposed of. [A.V.NIRGUDE J.]