- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.202 OF 2009 in NOTICE OF MOTION NO.865 OF 2006 in SUIT NO. 793 OF 2006 Jerome Joseph D’Souza ... Appellant vs Narvadaprasad S.Mishra & ors .. Respondents .. Mr.S.J.Chourasia i.b.M/s Ashoka Law Firm for Appellant Mr.B.H.Vyas for Respondent nos. 1,2,and 5 to 11. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.V.MORE,JJ DATED: November 30, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant who is the original Plaintiff in Suit No.793 of 2006 has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge passed below Notice of motion by which the learned Single Judge has refused the prayer for grant of injunction. By way of filing the suit the appellant has prayed that the conveyance deed dated 8th December 2004 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 which is executed by defendant nos. 3 to 11 is null and void. Case of the appellant is that he is the owner of the entire portion by virtue of the will executed by the deceased father and mother. It is prayed that an order of injunction may be passed restraining the respondents - 2 - on the basis of the sale deed which is challenged in the suit. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant cannot claim any right till the probate is obtained. The learned Single Judge also found that if the will is kept away, the plaintiff has got 1/12 share in the property which is not sold to the defendant nos. 1 and 2. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing in the matter. Considering the provisions of the Indian Succession Act in so far as Christians are concerned, now it is not required to get probate of the will to establish rights in the property on the basis of the will. However, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they will not create any third party interest in the suit property and they will maintain status quo prevailing as of today. Considering the submissions, this appeal is disposed of by restraining the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from creating any third party interest during the pendency of the suit. 3. Hearing of the suit is expedited. The amount of rent which is being collected from the tenants should be deposited before the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court who shall invest the rent amount initially for a period of three years in fixed deposit which may be renewed till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff may - 3 - collect the rent and deposit the rent amount before the Prothonotary and Senior Master which may be renewed from time to time. The question about recovering the said amount either fully or partly is to be decided in the suit itself. Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. 4. It is clarified that question of genuineness of the will is kept open and this Court has not considered this aspect. We have not examined the genuineness of the will as the learned Single Judge has also kept said question open. R.V.More, J P.B.Majmudar, J - 4 -