: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.186 OF 2007 IN SPL.C.SUIT NO.448 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.275 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.186 OF 2007 Lata R. Kamble ....Appellant V/s. Paravtibai S. Thorat, (since deceased) . through Heirs Shankar S. Thorat & Ors.....Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole for the Appellant. Mr.R.S. Datar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. With respect, the learned Judged has analysed the evidence in considerable detail. 2. This appears to be a collusive action between the Plaintiff/Appellant and her brother, Respondent No.2 to defraud Respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is difficult to see how the Plaintiff/Appellant could possible deny the validity of the sale-deeds : 2 : admittedly executed by her in favour of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. She contends that the same were executed fraudulently and under coercion from her brother, Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not related to the Appellant and Respondent No.2, her brother. 3. The Appellant’s main allegation even if genuine is against her brother - Respondent No.2. It is important to note that the sale deeds were preceded by agreements for sale which were admittedly executed by her two years prior thereto. The agreements for sale were executed during the life of the father of the Appellant and Respondent No.2. The Plaintiff was the power of attorney holder from her father in respect of the said property. It is also pertinent to note that the agreements for sale were executed by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and on behalf of her brother. The agreements for sale were challenged by Respondent No.2. Further in the suit filed by her brother challenging the agreements for sale, she filed a written statement admitting the same and confirming the validity thereof. 4. Faced with this, it is contended on her behalf that even the written statement was on blank : 3 : paper and fraudulently obtained. The transactions commenced in March, 2003 and culminated in March, 2006. It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s contention regarding coercion. The documents have been notarized and witnessed. There is no action taken against the notary and the witness. There is no satisfactory explanation in this regard. The present stand taken by the Plaintiff appears to be an after thought. 5. Apart from the fact that it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s statement even the Commissioner’s report quite clearly establishes that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the property at the relevant time. It is important to note that in the said proceedings filed by Respondent No.2, the Plaintiff has in her affidavit given an addresses as that of another place and not the suit premises. 6. A view to the contrary by the learned Judge in these circumstances and for various other circumstances mentioned in the impugned order would have been surprising. 7. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil Application is therefore : 4 : dismissed. 8. Status-quo order to continue for a period of eight weeks from today. The Appellant however, is also restrained from dealing with the suit property in any manner.