Disposed

Anthony George Dsouza and Anr. v. Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana @ Nancy Rana and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2010APP/506/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While hearing an appeal against a single judge's observations regarding the disposal of property, the two-judge bench accepted the appellant-respondent's undertaking not to alienate property during the suit's pendency. It held that operative orders based on such observations would no longer be needed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order left operative for suit's pendency; other reliefs withdrawn.

Anthony George Dsouza and Anr. Vs Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4052 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3006 OF 2007

¶4

Anthony George D’souza & Anr. ..Appellants. Versus Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana @ Nancy Rana & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. M. J. Jamdar for the Appellants. Ms. Calcuttawala, AGP for respondent no.3.

¶6

Coram : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 27, 2010.

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

The grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - defendant against the order impugned is that though the appellant has no intention to dispose of the property during the pendency of the suit, the observations that have been made by the learned Single Judge, for making that order, are incorrect. In our opinion, if the appellant is not really aggrieved by the operative order passed by the learned Single Judge, the apprehension that the observations made by the learned Single Judge will be used against him in some other proceedings, is misplaced because those observations are made by the learned Single Judge only for

¶9

-: 2 :-

¶10

the purpose of making that order and for no other purpose and therefore they will be relevant in that regard only and for no other purpose. In any case, learned counsel appearing for the defendant has stated before us that the defendant will not, during the pendency of the suit, create any third party rights or part with possession of the property or alienate the property without seeking leave of the Court. The statement is accepted. This statement fully protects the rights of the plaintiff and therefore, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the order in force. That only operative part of the impugned order dated 8^th September 2009, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendant, will operate during the pendency of the suit. Appeal is disposed of.

¶11

(D. K. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶12

(R.V. MORE, J.)

Anthony George Dsouza and Anr. v. Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana @ Nancy Rana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony George Dsouza and Anr. v. Mrs. Anna Isabella Rana @ Nancy Rana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalaxmi Tourism Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Vs Mahalaxmi Paryatan Kamgar and 3 Ors.

M/S Emel Financial Services Vs Mr.Mahendra Kumar Saraogi and Ors.

Jehangir a Wadia Dnors Vs the Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association Ltd. and Ors.

Dharamdas Manilal Jhaveri Vs Semcon Electronics Pvt. and Anr.

Shahenshabegum Alias Sona Diljag Vs Rehana Nasruddin Abul Karim and Ors.

1. Mumtaz Haji Sayani, Mumbai and 5 Others. Vs Amirali Fazalbhoy, Mumbai and 11 Others.