Allowed

Ranjana Inesh Humane @ Ranjana N. Jagdale v. Sushila Narayan Jagdle and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2012NMS/3412/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted a notice of motion for the appointment of a Court Receiver and injunction regarding a suit flat in Adneri, deemed part of the deceased father's estate, allegedly leased by a defendant without consent. The申请书 also sought confirmation of an ad interim injunction on other properties.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit flat at Andheri and confirmation of ad interim injunction on other properties.

Ranjana Inesh Humane @ Ranjana N. Jagdale Vs Sushila Narayan Jagdle… — Partition | Bombay HC (2012)

NM No.3412 of 2011

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3412 OF 2011 IN

¶7

SUIT NO. 2768 OF 2011

¶8

Ranjana Dinesh Humane alias Rajanna Narayan Jagdale

¶9

... Plaintiff

¶10

Versus

¶11

Sushila Narayan Jagdale and Ors. ... Defendants

¶12

Mr. Nilesh Modi with Ms. Chhaya Asher i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for plaintiff.

¶13

None for Defendant.

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA,JJ. DATED : JUNE 18, 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff

¶17

continues to own 1/5th undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit property and also other properties and assets left by the deceased father

¶18

late Narayan Jagadale. The Plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion

¶19

for appointment of Court Receiver and for injunction in respect of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 is mother of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2

¶20

is the brother of the plaintiff. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 are sisters of the

¶21

NM No.3412 of 2011

¶22

¶23

plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 4 expired on 6th July, 2010 intestate leaving plaintiff and defendants as only legal heirs.

¶24

It is the case of the plaintiff that though plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the estate of the deceased father, defendant no. 2 is not agreeable to partition of the suit property and give legitimate share of the plaintiff in the estate of the deceased father. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2 though was not entitled to deal with one of the suit property has entered into an agreement of leave and licence in favour of third party without taking consent of the plaintiff and other defendants. The Plaintiff has placed reliance upon leave and licence agreement dated 14th June, 2011 between defendant no. 2 and one Mr. Craig Macgowan in respect of the suit flat situated at Andheri. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2 is in custody of all the properties and is not disclosing the details of the estate of deceased father of the plaintiff.

¶25

As far as property situated at Dapoli, Ratnagiri is concerned, the same is in possession of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly. By ad interim order dated 12th December, 2011 passed by my brother D.G.Karnik.J.

¶26

3 NM No.3412 of 2011

¶27

ad interim injunction restraining defendant from selling, transferring or mortgaging the suit property was granted. None appeared today for defendants though served. No affidavit in reply is filed by the defendants.

¶28

In my opinion, the suit property situated at Andheri i.e. Flat No. B9, Akshay Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Model Town, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 which is prima facie forming part of the estate of deceased father and admittedly given on leave and licence to third party, exclusively by defendant no. 2 is required to be protected. I therefore, appoint Court Receiver in respect of the suit flat and direct the court receiver to appoint the party in occupation of the flat, if any, as his agent, on usual terms and conditions and on payment of royalty and on furnishing security. In the event of the suit flat not having been given on leave and licence as on today, the defendants are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.

¶29

In respect of the other properties, ad interim order dated 12th December, 2011 passed by D.G. Karnik,J. is confirmed. It would also be appropriate to direct the defendants to file affidavit in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) of the Notice of Motion within the period of four

¶30

NM No.3412 of 2011

¶31

¶32

weeks from today. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in aforesaid

¶33

terms accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

The Court Receiver to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Association of this Court.

¶35

R.D. DHANUKA,J.

Ranjana Inesh Humane @ Ranjana N. Jagdale v. Sushila Narayan Jagdle and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Inesh Humane @ Ranjana N. Jagdale v. Sushila Narayan Jagdle and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamim Bano D/O Alisa Khan and Shahina Parveen D/O/ Asgar Ali Vs Ankush Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Rosehall Pharmaceuticals and 2 Ors.

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs J.B.B. Health Care Ltd.

Chetana Book Depot Vs Dhaanush Educationals and v. Bhakhavatchallam

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Rosehall Pharmaceuticals and 2 Ors.

Paul Mathew Cohelho Vs Maria P. Fernandes and Salim a. Fernandes