ANUSAYABAI Vs. ANDRESH RAKHMA BRAMHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Application No.6663 of 2021 has been filed by original respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 in the second appeal seeking injunction against present respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2 i.e. respondent Nos.2A to 2D from alienating, creating third party interest, changing the nature of the suit property i.e. land Gut No.191 of village Loni (Kh.), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar till the decision of the second appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. P. Bhandari for applicants, learned Advocate Mr. V. R. Dhorde for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Advocate Mr. R. K. Adsure for respondent Nos.5 to 14, learned Advocate Mr. Y. B. Pathan for respondent No.9 and learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Chapalgaonkar and Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar for respondent No.1 in Civil Application Nos.13196/2017, 13195/2017, 1317/2017, 13193/2017.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of applicants that the second appeal is admitted and it is pending for final disposal, however, appellant Nos.2, 3 and respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 have expired. Application has been filed for bringing the legal representatives of appellant No.2 on record for which there is delay of 5844 days. Legal representatives of appellant No.3 are already on record. The appeal has abated against respondent No.1 by order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) and application for setting aside the said order as well as application to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.1 is still pending. Another application for condoning the delay of 5667 days in bringing legal representatives of respondent No.2 is pending. Respondent No.3 had passed away on 14.03.1997, when the matter was before the lower Appellate Court. Respondent No.5's legal heirs are on record. Respondent No.12 had passed away on 07.03.1998 and the civil application is pending for bringing her legal representatives on record. The original appellants are not prosecuting the appeal properly. Applicants are the original plaintiffs whose rights of having half share in the suit land has been confirmed by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal preferred by the original defendants has been dismissed. The decree for partition and separate possession has been stayed by this Court and the applicants are waiting for the fruits of the decree for about 37 years. Now, during the pendency of the appeal, the property is mutated in the name of respondent Nos.1, 2A to 2D. They are taking certain steps to develop the property and thereby it appears that they want to change the nature of the same. They should preserve the property as it is till the decision of the second appeal and, therefore, there is necessity to pass an order protecting the interest of the applicants.