: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.618 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.873 OF 2007 Bablu Tanaji Malme ..Appellant. Vs. Shri Sharad Vilas Mali & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.U.R.Mankapure for the Appellant. Mr.T.S. Ingale for Respondent no.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 DATED : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 DATED : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Admit. Heard finally. 2. I intend only modifying the impugned order by directing Respondent no.1/Plaintiff, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, not to dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of, or create any third party right, title and/or interest, in, to, upon or in respect of the suit property. It is so ordered. 3. I am however not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in other respects. 4. Prima-facie, the agreement dated 19.9.2006 of which specific performance is sought, is valid. That Respondent no.1/Plaintiff and original : 2 : Defendant no.1 executed the document is not denied. It is however contended that it was signed by original Defendant no.1 in the belief that it was merely a document of co-lateral security to acquire a loan of Rs.20,000/- advanced by Respondent no.1 to original Defendant no.1 5. The document however is in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the sale consideration. It is a registered document. On 12.10.2006 original Defendant no.1 sought to deny the agreement on the aforesaid ground. 6. The present application is resisted essentially by Defendant no.9/the Appellant. The Appellant claims to have acquired the title to the said property under a registered sale deed dated 9.11.2006. 7. That status-quo in respect of the property requires to be maintained pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit is clear. The only question is which of the parties viz. the Appellant/Respondent no.1 should be held to be in possession at the prima-facie stage. : 3 : 8. I am unable to fault the impugned order. Prima-facie, it does appear that Respondent no.1 is in possession. It is pertinent to note that the document dated 9.11.2006 is executed in favour of the Appellant, who is the grandson of original Defendant no.1. Respondent no.8/Defendant no.7 is the daughter of original Defendant no.1 and the Appellant is the son of Defendant no.7/Respondent no.8. 9. It is even more important to note that the other Respondents who are the family members of original Defendant no.1, have also signed the agreement in favour of Defendant no.1/Respondent no.1 dated 19.9.96. This document includes mention of the fact that possession of the property was handed over to the Plaintiff/Respondent no.1. 10. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order and the Civil Application are disposed of by observing that the Plaintiff/Respondent no.1 shall be entitled to remain in possession of the suit property. However, the Plaintiff/Respondent no.1 pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, shall not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of, or create any third party right, title and/or : 4 : interest, in, to, upon or in respect of the suit property.