contesting Defendants is that they simultaneously relinquished
their rights in respect of a flat in Atlas Apartments, near Nepean
Sea Road. Mr. Cooper responds by saying that that flat belonged to
the Plaintiffs absolutely, to which it is pointed out that there is no
material to show this. Mr. Chinoy’s case is that the two brothers
Hussein and Kamruddin bought the flat in Atlas Apartments
together in 1986, and that it is this 50% right that devolved from
Hussein on Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and which they then
relinquished in favour of the Plaintiffs. He also points to Exhibit
“A” to the sur-rejoinder, an undated document with some
additional pages. This document, not in handwriting but printed
out, sets out several terms. The Defendants have candidly admitted
that this was never signed. Nonetheless, this document makes
mention of the Atlas Apartment property coming to the Plaintiffs;
the arrangement in relation to the Plaintiffs’ shop; various other
properties including shares in partnership firms, warehouses leased
from the Bombay Port Trust, a division of distribution of certain
finances, Rs. 90 lakhs to be paid to the Plaintiffs, among others.
The document also specifically mentions the two buildings. It states
that both these buildings are to go to Hussein Chitalwala’s family. It
does not, however, contain any mention of restraint, restriction or
condition on further transfer. Prima facie, this would indicate that
there was no such intention of restraint either. Of course this means
that I must accept that there was such a document, and not, as Mr.
Cooper says, something typed up and flourished at a late stage in
the proceedings. Having regard to the tenor of the document, it is
difficult to accept that this was not drawn up when the Hussein
family says it was. Two pages further in this document is a typed
note with an endorsement in the 4th Plaintiff’s handwriting
