IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 227 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2011 MR. JOSE ANTONIO PEDRO MENINO FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus MR. INACIO FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 18th November, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an application for interim relief during the pendency of the above Second Appeal. It is the contention of Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that after the above Second Appeal has been admitted, the respondents have started some construction activity in the suit portion which, if allowed to continue, would render the appeal itself infructuous. Considering the conduct of the respondents, the appellants have apprehension that the respondents may create third party right or alienate the disputed portion during the pendency of the above appeal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that he has also learnt that the respondents are in the process of cutting trees in the suit property. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the Second Appeal has been admitted and as the applicants are claiming right of ownership and possession in respect of the disputed portion of the land, the status quo as existing at the site is to be maintained and, as such, relief as prayed for in the application deserves to be granted. 3. On the other hand, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has disputed the contentions raised by the applicants. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the two Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the applicants have no right of ownership or possession in respect of the disputed portion. During the pendency of the suit, though similar reliefs were sought by the applicants, nevertheless, the learned trial Judge, limited relief was granted to the effect that the respondents would not create any third party right or alienate the disputed portion of the property during the pendency of the suit. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in order to protect their property the respondents intend to put up a compound wall. It is further the case of the learned Senior Counsel that at present, the respondents have no intention of carrying out any other activity in the disputed portion of the property. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants has already been admitted. Considering that there was an injunction during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Judge to the effect that respondents should not create any third party right or alienate disputed portion of the property, I find that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that pending the disposal of the above Second Appeal, the respondents be restrained from creating any third party right or alienate the disputed portion of the property and also cutting any trees existing therein. 5. With regard to the construction of the compound wall sought to be carried out by the respondents, I find that any such construction shall be subject to the result of the Second Appeal without disturbing the ingress and egress of the appellants to the existing residential house of the appellants in the property surveyed under no.2/5. The respondents shall not claim any equities with that regard at the time of deciding the Second Appeal on merits, and such construction shall be subject to any further orders which may be passed while disposing of the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants. 6. Taking note of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents to the effect that the respondents have no intention presently to carry out any other construction activity in the disputed portion of the property, I find that in view of the said statement the apprehension of the appellant to that effect at this stage cannot be accepted. But however, in case any such activity is carried out the appellants shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application with that regard during the pendency of the above appeal. 7. Application stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. NH