Partly allowed

Jayanti N. Poojary and 5 Ors. v. Devendra Rao

Bombay HC5 Jul 2013NMS/3437/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit involving the estate of a deceased mother, the High Court refused an adjournment for the defendant's change of counsel. Finding that the defendant exclusively possessed estate properties and collected rents, the Court appointed a Court Receiver to collect rents and maintain accounts, directing a further affidavit disclosure from the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of a Court Receiver to collect rents from suit properties and maintain accounts; continuation of the ad interim order dated 05/03/2012; direction to defendant to file an affidavit within t

Jayanti N. Poojary and 5 Ors. Vs Devendra Rao — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

.. 1 ..

17-nms-3437.11.sxw

hvn

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3437 OF 2011 IN

¶6

SUIT NO. 2757 OF 2011

¶7

Jayanti Narayan Poojari and Ors.

… Plaintiffs

Versus

Devenda Rao

… Defendant.

Mr. D.H. Mehta along with S.K. Shetty i/by M/s. Shetty & Associates for the Plaintiffs.

¶13

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : JULY 05, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Defendant is present in court and seeks time on the ground that he seeks to change his advocate at this stage. On perusal of the order dated 5^th March, 2012 passed by this court, it is clear that the defendants were directed to disclose various documents and to file affidavit in reply on or before 15^th March,2012. Neither any affidavit in reply has been filed by the defendants nor any disclosure is made pursuant to the ad interim oder passed by this court on 5^th March, 2012. Application for adjournment is refused.

¶16

On perusal of the ad interim order passed by this court on 5^th March, 2012, it is clear that 2/3^rd share of the plaintiff who are sisters of the defendants and daughters of the deceased is not in dispute. Even according to defendants five shop premises which are forming part of the estate of the deceased, have been let out on monthly rent. Defendant has been collecting

¶17

.. 2 .. 17-nms-3437.11.sxw

¶18

the rents from the tenants to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiff that since last five years, the plaintiffs have been deprived of their share in the properties left by the mother and have not paid any amount towards their share till date. Though by the ad interim order dated 5/3/2012 the defendant was directed to file affidavit within the period of two weeks setting out the accounts in respect of the properties including the premises of hotel, no such affidavit has been filed.

¶19

Even at the interim stage, in my prima facie view none of the heirs of the deceased can be allowed to enjoy the properties of the deceased exclusively. The defendant herein exclusively possess and enjoys the estate of the deceased. On perusal of the plaint, and annexures, I am of the prima facie view that case is made out by the plaintiffs for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the properties described in Exh. C and D to the plaint. It is ordered accordingly.

¶20

Court Receiver shall appoint the respondent or occupant found in possession of the properties an agent of the Court Receiver on usual terms and conditions. The Court Receiver is directed to collect the rent from the tenants and the occupants in respect of the suit properties described in Exh. C and D and maintain accounts. Till the Court Receiver takes possession of the suit properties, ad interim order passed by this court on 5^th March, 2012 to continue.

¶21

Notice of motion is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

.. 3 .. 17-nms-3437.11.sxw

¶23

The defendant is directed to disclose on affidavit the estate of the deceased with all particulars with documentary evidence by filing affidavit within three weeks from today and shall also disclose the amounts recovered by the defendants from the properties described in Exhibits C and D without fail.

¶24

On such affidavit if filed by the defendant within the time as prescribed, plaintiff would be at liberty to apply for further interim relief.

Jayanti N. Poojary and 5 Ors. v. Devendra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti N. Poojary and 5 Ors. v. Devendra Rao

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

Dinaz Avsia Vs Aspy Captain

Gopal B. Ahuja Vs Jagdish B. Ahuja and 18 Ors.

Prakash P Bambardekar Vs Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar C.A. of Anant Sadashiv Ajgaonkar

Tata Finance Limited Vs Mr. Dilip S. Pendse and 32 Ors. and Tata Motors Limited

Pruthvinath Fulchand Gupta and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abdul Rashid Abdul Rehman Yusuf and Anr.