gst 1 sa125.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2009 Nathu Genba Khaire.... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Sitaram Shankar Khaire.... ..... ...Respondent. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.R.V.Vasekar, Adv. For respondents 1A to 1F and 2 & 3. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 1st September, 2010. PC: Admit on following question of law: 1. Whether the Courts below have property apreciated pleading, deposition, admission given in cross coupled with recital, in conditional sale deed of 1951 in its proper perspective while holding that suit property is not ancestral property? 2. Whether Courts below have taken into account the burden to prove that suit property is self acquired/separate property of deceased Maruti is upon deft and same is not discharged by him? 3. Whether Courts below were justified in holding that there is no sufficient pleading on the point that deceased Maruti was having source of income of ancestral agricultural land in light of admissions given in cross by deft? 4. Whether Courts below were justified in holding that suit property is self acquired on separate property even though family was joint family property till children of deceased Shankar attained majority and family continued to be joint family which is evident from the fact that Bhav was karte and guardian for children of deceased Shankar in respect of suit property which is evident from 7/12 extract and finding of courts below gst 2 sa125.09.sxw there can the suit property be treated as self/acquired a separate property of Maruti? 5. In view of recitals in conditional sale deed whether defendant is estopped from pleading contrary thereto that suit property is still self acquired/separate property of Maruti? Mr.Vasekar, learned advocate waives service respondents. gst 3 sa125.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION 567 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2009 Nathu Genba Khaire.... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Sitaram Shankar Khaire.... ..... ...Respondent. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.R.V.Vasekar, Adv. For respondents 1A to 1F and 2 & 3. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 1st September, 2010. PC: In view of concurrent findings that the appellant is not in possession of the suit premises I am not inclined to grant prayer in so far as it pertains to protection of the applicant’s possession. The application therefore stands rejected. 2. However in order to secure the interest of the parties respondents are directed not to create any third party interest in the suit property.