1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1087 of 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1908 of 2009 Anil Khushalchand Chajed ....Applicant Vs. Mr. Sarjeev Ramchandra Jagtap ....Respondent Mr. S.M.Oak i/b. Sagar Joshi, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.M.Raikar, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.V.Sadavarte, advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A..SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 27, 2010 P.C. By this Application, it is prayed by the Appellant-original Plaintiff that the Respondents be restrained from creating any third party interest whatsoever in the suit property during the pendency of the Appeal. By separate order passed today, we have already admitted the appeal having found that formidable questions have been raised in the appeal to challenge the correctness of the 2 decision of the Lower Court. 2. We are prima-facie of the opinion that the attempt of the Respondents jointly and severally is to frustrate the agreement dated 19th April, 2006 executed in favour of the Appellant. The fact that the Respondent No. 2 was not signatory to the said agreement would not absolve the Respondents from the representation made to the Appellant as recorded in the said agreement. The fact remains that the suit property earlier belonged to the joint family and on account of subsequent family arrangement, it has now gone to the share of Respondent No.2. Before that, the Respondent No. 1 executed a formal agreement in favour of the Appellant in April 2006 on the relevant date. The name of Respondent No. 1 was mentioned in the 7/12 extract in respect of the suit property on 19th September, 2003. The name of the Respondent No. 1 who executed the suit agreement has been bracketed only on 8th December, 2006. (i.e. after the execution of the suit agreement). Prima-facie, it is obvious that the Respondents have made a concerted effort to deny the benefit enured to the Appellant on account of the suit agreement inspite of execution thereof as back as in April 2006 in relation to suit property and more so having accepted the amount to the extent of Rs. 8 lacs being part consideration. The Respondents have enjoyed the said amount for all this period which, in our view, 3 is quite substantial. The fact that the trial Court has now directed the Respondent No. 1 to refund the said amount cannot be the basis to deny the reliefs as claimed by the Appellant in the suit filed before the Lower court. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, interim-relief as prayed for in terms of prayer clause (a) is granted. The same shall operate during the pendency of appeal. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. 4. At this stage Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the Respondent No.2 was not party to the agreement and more so the said Respondent is a senior citizen. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, that already stands rejected in view of the reasons recorded by us earlier. Insofar as second reason for expediting hearing of the appeal is concerned, it will be open to Respondent No.2 to take out formal application which will be considered on its own merits. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)