1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.264 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.2769 of 2007 (Decided) And Misc. Civil Application No.915 of 2007 (Decided) (Rajendra Vithalrao Ratnaparkhi v. Ashok Narayanrao Malvi and another) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Appellant. Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 3rd April, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. Respondent No.1 obtained a decree for possession of the site described in the plaint, which was encroached upon by respondent No.2/Judgment-Debtor. The said decree was confirmed by the Apex Court. During execution proceedings, the appellant, who is the son of the Judgment-Debtor, raised an objection to the effect that the said land was purchased by his father/Judgment-Debtor as benami, and that there was a family partition between the Judgment-Debtor and his sons including the appellant by unregistered partition-deed dated 20-7-1984. It is thus clear that the appellant claimed ownership over the site in question through his father, viz. the Judgment-Debtor. The Trial Court, the Appellate Court as 2 well as the learned Single Judge negatived the claim of the appellant and in our opinion rightly so. It is apparent that the appellant is unnecessarily obstructing the execution of the decree passed against his father. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand). 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the possession of the appellant was protected during the pendency of the appeal and that the appellant desires to challenge the present order. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the protection may be extended for some time. We are not inclined to extend the protection to the appellant, because the decree is passed as far back as in 1997. The prayer is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE pdl