Partly allowed

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. v. Kadir Yakub Patrawala and 31 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013NMS/975/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified a prior judgment and decree in a partition suit pursuant to a family arrangement entered by the parties. The modification allows the arrangement to proceed subject to the condition that the applicant's 1/16th share in the deceased's estate be deposited in the Court as properties are sold or let out.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the family arrangement as per the prayer, subject to depositing 1/16th share of the estate into the Court.

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. Vs Kadir… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

mnm

¶2

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

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 975 OF 2012 IN

¶4

SUIT NO. 2545 OF 2007

¶5

Halima Mohd Siddique Farooqui & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Kadir Yakub Patrawala & Ors. ...Defendants And Ishrat Yakub Patrawala ...Applicant

¶6

Mr. Vatsal Shah a/w. Mr. S. Parikh a/w. Ms. Punita Soni i/b. Bilawala & Comp., for Plaintiffs Mr. Kamal Bulchandani for Applicant Mr. Swapnil Bangoor i/b. Vinod Mistry & Co., for Defendant Nos. 8(ii) to (iv) Mr. Vasim A. Shaikh for Defendant Nos. 1,2,4 & 5

¶7

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1^ST APRIL, 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The parties have entered into a certain family arrangement on 23^rd January, 2012 pending the suit and upon a preliminary decree being passed on 14^th December, 2012 pursuant to which there was a meeting between the parties as directed by the order dated 15^th February, 2011 by the Appeal Court.

¶10

The applicant in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011 who has claimed to be the 4^th wife of the deceased and who has been made a party defendant by an order passed earlier today has

¶11

sought to protect her 1/16^th share in the estate of the deceased. The plaintiffs who have taken out this Chamber Summons fairly concede that the family arrangement may proceed and the 1/16^th share of the applicant in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011 be kept deposited and protected in the Court.

¶12

Counsel on behalf of applicant in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011 has also fairly conceded that the family arrangement may proceed subject to the protection of 1/16^th share of the said applicant.

¶13

Counsel on behalf of defendant No.7 has objected to the protection of the 1/16^th share of the applicant in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011. Defendant No.7 accepts the family arrangement dated 23^rd January, 2012 and seeks to proceed thereunder. In view of the order protecting the 1/16^th share of the applicant passed earlier today in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011, the family arrangement dated 23^rd January, 2012 can also be allowed to proceed only subject to protection of such share.

¶14

Hence the following order:

¶15

The judgment and decree dated 14^th December, 2010 in Notice of Motion No. 3412 of 2007 is modified in terms of the family arrangement dated 23^rd January, 2012 as per prayer (a) subject to the parties acting upon the family arrangement depositing 1/16^th share of the value of the estate of the deceased

¶16

being deposited in the Court as and when each property of the deceased is sold or let out as per the family arrangement until further orders.

¶17

The plaintiffs shall inform the applicant in Chamber Summons No.1682 of 2011 of the steps taken in execution of the family arrangement.

¶18

Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. v. Kadir Yakub Patrawala and 31 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. v. Kadir Yakub Patrawala and 31 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

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve Vs Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve and Anr.

Mr. Raj Katra Vs Mrs. Sunita Raj Katra

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah Vs Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah

M/S. Madhu Fantasy Land P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Halima Mohd. Siddique Farooqui and 2 Ors. Vs Kadir Yakub Patrawala and 31 Ors.

M/S. Alpine Stamping Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.