In a suit for partition, the single judge allowed the defendant to enter the suit premises solely to park his vehicle by placing a common lock on the gate, which he could remove only for this purpose.
The defendant was allowed to remove a common lock to park his car; he could not claim possession of the premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 379 OF 2009 IN
SUIT NO. 1218 OF 2003
Ms. Norma Carneiro Alphonso & Anr.
... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Dr. Kenneth Carneiro Alphonso.
... Defendant.
Mr. S.S. Kudalkar for the Plaintiff.
Mr. J.M. D’Silva for the Defendant.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.
04TH FEBRUARY 2009.
P.C. :
. This is a Notice of Motion by the Defendant.
sides, the Motion is placed for hearing and final
disposal. It is disposed off by this order.
for the Defendant to park his car in the garage located
and situated in the suit premises.
at Exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint.
:2:
| 5. | Th | e Suit i | s filed for partitio | n. The Def | endant i | s | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the | brother | of | the First |
Plaintiff. | In the |
light | of | the | |
| fact | that | both | sides | have a |
long | standing |
dispute, | it | |
| would | not | be | proper to |
allow |
the | Defendant | to | enter | the |
| property | for | the | purpose |
of | using | and |
o | ccupying | it. |
However, his limited request can be granted on the
following agreed terms :-
(i) The Defendant can park his car in the garage
situated in the suit premises. For that purpose he
will be allowed to enter the compound/premises and
he shall park the vehicle in the garage and
thereafter, remove himself from the suit premises/portion thereof. Both sides agree that they will put a common lock on the gate/compound
wall and the Defendant can remove the said lock only for the purpose of accessing the garage and
parking his vehicle/car therein.
(ii) This arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides in the Suit. The Defendant cannot on the basis of this order claim to be in possession of the suit premises or the garage. He also cannot claim to be in possession of the compound of the building. All that he is permitted is to take his vehicle and park it in the garage by removing the lock on the
:3:
compound gate. He can use the compound only for taking his car to the garage and for removing the same.
passed on the basis of without prejudice statements made
in para 13 of the letter dated 19th January 2009 by the Plaintiffs’ Advocate.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant the defendant limited access to park his car in the garage located in the suit premises.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
