1 919-caf.458.11 ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Clive D’Souza for the Applicants. Mr. Nitin Parkhe for i/b Mr.Aniket Nikam for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11 th February, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party for the purpose of this civil application. 2 Respondent No.1 is the decree holder. The decree relates to a residential flat. Admittedly, one Yeshibai was the owner of the suit flat. Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff is a son of said Yeshibai. Applicant No.1 (1 st obstructionist) is admittedly a daughter of the said Yeshibai. Applicant No.2 is the son of the 1 st Applicant. 3 Prima-facie, it appears to me that there is no dispute 2 919-caf.458.11 that the said Yeshibai was the owner of the suit flat. Respondent No.1 claims that suit flat was transfered in his name by the mother - Yeshibai by executing a nomination form and an affidavit. Prima-facie, the said documents will not effect a transfer of right, title or interest of mother - Yeshibai. Prima facie, on demise of the mother - Yeshibai, even Applicant No.1 will get an undivided share in the suit flat. Hence, a case is made out for grant of stay of the order passed in obstructionists notice. 4 Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition that the Applicants will not create any third party rights in respect of the suit flat and will not part with possession thereof in favour of any third party. [ A.S.OKA, J ]