Ajay Piramal and Ors. and Vs Aleya Chinmulgund and Anr. Ajay Piramal and Ors.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 136 OF 2004

¶5

IN

¶6

 TP NO.1242 OF 1999

¶7

 Ajay Piramal & Ors. .. Plaintiffs.
 vs.

¶8

 Aleya Chinmulgund & Anr.
 & Ors. .. Defendants.

¶9

 Mr. D.D. Belosey for applicants.

¶10

 Mr. Alaya Chinmulgund present.

¶11

 Mr. Naushad Engineer i/by Desai & Dwanji & Co.

¶12

 for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶13

CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J.

¶14

DATE : 5th August,2005.

¶15

 P.C.

¶16

 . The present notice of motion was heard by me
 on 22.7.2005. On a complaint of the applicant that
 the estate of the deceased has not ben administered,
 I as per the consent of the parties took steps for
 effective administration of the estate of the
 deceased particularly one property which was yet not
 sold. The basic complaint of the applicant on the
 last occasion was that her personal belongings are

¶17

 2
 lying in the said premises and she is not allowed to
 remove the same. To satisfy her contention, I had
 appointed a Court Officer Mr. Trivedi, as
 Commissioner to visit the premises and if there are
 belongings of the applicant lying in the premises,
 the same to be handed over to the applicant. The
 Commissioner has visited the said premises and
 prepared inventory of the belongings lying therein.
 The said report of the Commissioner is taken on
 record and marked "X" for identification. The

¶18

 parties are at liberty to take copies of the said
 report of the Commissioner. In so far as the sale
 of the flat was concerned, I also strived to see
 that the said flat can be sold and pursuant thereto
 on express consent of the parties including the
 applicant herein who was present in Court and was
 represented through an Advocate, I appointed an
 Architect for the purpose of valuation of the flat
 and directed the petitioners to give an
 advertisement in the newspaper inviting offers from
 various parties. Some offers have been received
 which are handed over by the learned counsel for the
 plaintiff. I direct the office of the Prothonotary
 and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay to put the
 said sealed offers in a separate envelope along with
 sealed valuation report and the report of the
 Commissioner. All these documents after placing in
 a separate envelope will be sealed by the
 Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay

¶19

¶20

 and to be opened in accordance with orders of the
 Court. The said papers will be retained by the
 Officer of the Prothonotary and Senior Master till
 further orders.

¶21

 2. Today the applicant is appearing in person
 and has sought to discharge her advocate and the
 applicant is inter alia contending that she wants a
 stay of the order dated 25.7.2005. She insists that
 she is not agreeable to the said order dated
 25.7.2005 and her motion be heard. In the aforesaid
 circumstances, I am hearing the motion on merits.

¶22

 3. Turning to the notice of motion, prayer
 clause (a) of the notice of motion pertains to a
 direction that the petitioner to furnish the
 accounts on administration of the estate of the
 deceased duly certified by the Chartered Accountant.
 The executor is directed to furnish the accounts
 after the estate is fully administered as provided
 under the Indian Succession Act. On estate being
 fully administered the executors will furnish
 accounts within a period of four weeks therefrom. A
 copy of such accounts will also be given tot he
 applicant.

¶23

 4. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned,
 inventory of the articles lying in the flat at
 Ranjit Apartment has already been taken. Today for

¶24

¶25

 the first time the applicant is contending that
 inventory of the items which are lying in the garage
 is not taken. Prayer clause (b) of the motion does
 not mentioned of the garage at all and, therefore,
 the question of taking inventory of the articles, if
 any, lying in the garage, did not arise nor does it
 arise today in view of the inventory already taken.
 There is no further question of granting any relief
 in terms of prayer clause (b) of the motion. If
 there are any articles which are personally
 belonging to the applicant then on the applicant
 identifying the same, the Commissioner is authorised
 to hand over the same to the applicant.

¶26

 5. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned,
 by the said prayer, the applicant is seeking the
 payment of maintenance charges and compensation from
 respondent no. 4 for the use and occupation of flat
 no. 13 in Ranjit Apartment. In so far as prayer
 clause (c) is concerned, it is an admitted position
 that the respondent no. 4 is an estranged husband
 of the applicant. He was in occupation, according
 to the applicant, for a period of three years and 8
 months. In any event, such relief against third
 party is not maintainable in testamentary
 jurisdiction and that too by way of a notice of
 motion. Hence, prayer clause (c) of the motion is
 rejected.

¶27

¶28

 6. In so far as prayer clauses (d) and (e) are
 concerned, they are during the pendency of the
 motion. In view of the fact that the motion itself
 is finally disposed of, the said prayers do not
 survive.

¶29

 7. Motion disposed of accordingly. On the
 request of the applicant herein, further proceedings
 of identifying articles belonging to her personally
 in the inventory and/or further proceedings of sale
 of the flat as directed by my order dated 25.7.2005
 is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.
 The keys of the premises also to be handed over by
 the Commissioner to the Prothonotary and Senior
 Master, High Court, Bombay, which will be retained
 along with other documents which are directed to be
 retained under this order.

¶30

 8. The petitioners are directed to pay the
 costs, charges and expenses of the Commissioner and
 Architect appointed pursuant to the order dated
 25.7.2005 from the estate of the deceased.

Ajay Piramal and Ors. and v. Aleya Chinmulgund and Anr. Ajay Piramal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Piramal and Ors. and v. Aleya Chinmulgund and Anr. Ajay Piramal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The B.P.T. of Bombay Vs Laldee Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S.Maniklal Commodities P.Ltd. Vs the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co.Ltd.

M/S.Hasmukhrai Chandan Vs the Oriental Fine and General Industries Co.Ltd

Curzon Maritime Ltd. Vs Pec Ltd.

Mr.Kirit P.Kapadia and Anr. Vs Dinesh P.Lalji Mr.Janak D.Chikhal and Ors.

Mrs. Meera Ashok Adhye Vs Ms. Shakuntala a. Kotibhaskar and Anr.