Dismissed

Raminder Kaur Anand and Anr. v. Sajanbir Singh Anand and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2013APP/351/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed by siblings against an interim order passed in an administration suit restraining them from alienating inherited suit property. The High Court held the interim order was just and equitable, the appeal grounds were vague, and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the interim order restraining alienation of the suit property.

Raminder Kaur Anand and Anr. Vs Sajanbir Singh Anand and 9 Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

app (l) 197-2012

1/2

sat

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

¶5

APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 197 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2287 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 1869 OF 2011

¶6

Raminder Kaur Anand & Anr.

¶7

..Appellants

¶8

¶9

Sajanbir Singh Anand & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Ranbir Singh with Mr.Rizvi Naser Ali i/b. M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associate for the Appellants.

¶12

Mr.Dilip Shukla for Respondent No.1.

¶13

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

¶14

16 JULY 2013.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

A preliminary issue has been framed under Section 9A of the Code

¶17

of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit has been instituted by the First, Second and Third Respondents, who are siblings of the First Appellant, for the administration of the estate of their deceased father and for consequential reliefs of partition. In that suit, an ad-interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 12 October 2011 restraining the Appellants from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with the possession of the suit property to the extent of the share of the three Plaintiffs. The ad-interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge as far back as on 12 October 2011. But quite apart from that, we are satisfied that the order is a just and equitable order and was necessary in order to protect the interest of the parties in the suit for administration of the estate of the deceased father.

app (l) 197-2012

2/2

sat

2 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits

¶22

that as a result of the ad-interim order, the appellants are unable to take possession of a residential flat which falls to the share of the First Appellant since the developer is refusing to do so on the ground of the ad-interim order which is passed in the proceedings.

¶23

3 There is merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs that this submission is completely vague; there are no details of the alleged development or of the entitlement of any of the Appellants to obtain possession of the flat. Nonetheless, we clarify that it would be open for the Appellants to move the learned Judge for appropriate reliefs. The ad-interim order does not call for any interference in Appeal.

¶24

4 The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Raminder Kaur Anand and Anr. v. Sajanbir Singh Anand and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raminder Kaur Anand and Anr. v. Sajanbir Singh Anand and 9 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

Praveen Nathmal Ramani and Anr. Vs Kiran Nathmal Ramani and 2 Ors.

Rakesh Nathmal Ramani and Anr. Vs Kiran Nathmal Ramani and 2 Ors.

Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. and Anr.

Dr. Pooja Kiran Hatti Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Dr. Pooja Kiran Hatti Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

SBI Global Factors Ltd. Vs M/S. K Sera Sera Production Ltd. Ltd. -L22100MH1995PLC092438