Allowed

Abubakar Abdul Karim and Junaid a.Karim v. Ali Mohamed Vali Mohamed Patel and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2011NMS/68/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants regarding a flat purchase dispute. The court noted family settlement complexities and heir disputes, deciding not to grant possession or dispossess the defendant at this stage. An interim stay was granted.

What did the court decide?

Injunction restraining defendants from parting with possession or alienating the suit premises; Defendant No.2 to pay all outgoings.

Abubakar Abdul Karim and Junaid a.Karim Vs Ali Mohamed… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

nms68-11

vai

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.68 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.71 OF 2011

¶6

Abubakar Abdul Karim Patel & Anr. V/s.

¶7

Ali Mohd. Vali Mohamed Patel & Anr.

¶8

....Plaintiffs

¶9

....Defendants

¶10

Ms.Prachi Khandge i/b M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Plaintiffs.

¶11

Mr.Santosh Shetty for Defendant No.1.

¶12

Mr.S.D. Mogre for Defendant No.2.

¶13

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST, 2011.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining the defendants from parting with possession etc. of the suit property being a flat and also for an order of possession thereof.

¶16

The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the flat by an agreement dated 30.12.2009 entered into between defendant No.1 and themselves. Defendant No.1 is the father of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs allege having paid a sum of Rs.14,15,000/- in cash being the full consideration under the said agreement.

¶17

Defendant No.1 does not deny the agreement. The matter

¶18

nms68-11

¶19

¶20

however, does not rest there. According to defendant No.2, the rent receipt in respect of the original premises stood in his name. He transferred the same to the name of his mother. Upon redevelopment of the property, permanent alternate accommodation was provided in the new building. A society was formed in respect thereof. The share certificate was issued in the name of the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 does not and cannot deny the same in view of an affidavit filed by him, wherein he states that his wife was a member of the society and that his wife died recently. The affidavit however wrongly goes on to state that defendant No.1 is the only heir. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is not the only heir.

¶21

There appears to have been a family settlement also. It is however, not necessary to consider any other facts in detail. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no question of dispossessing defendant No.2 at this stage and to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property.

¶22

In the circumstances, the notice of motion is disposed of by restraining the defendants from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit premises. Defendant No.2 shall pay all the outgoings and all other costs, charges and expenses in connection with the said flat.

Abubakar Abdul Karim and Junaid a.Karim v. Ali Mohamed Vali Mohamed Patel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abubakar Abdul Karim and Junaid a.Karim v. Ali Mohamed Vali Mohamed Patel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasbir Singh Gurumukh Singh Dardi D/H.a) Jagjit Kaur Jasabirsingh Bhasin(Dardi)and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh Gurumukh Singh Dardi and Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S. K.R. Traders

Desiya Online Travel Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Cleartrip Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. and 14 Ors.

Rupkumar Sadashiv Tatkar, Vs 1. Shree Chatushrungi Seva Samiti, through Its Trustees, and Ors.

Dr Ashok M. Bhat Vs Anup Sethi

Tarun C. Shah Vs Satish C. Shah and 5 Ors.