Allowed

Arunkumar J. Patel and 3 Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Ramji and Amit Vasant Kenia and 3 Ors. (Applicant/Interveners)

Bombay HC18 Aug 2017CST/103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a chamber summons directing petitioners to implead applicants as respondents in a testamentary matter, accepting applicants' claim of property interest via registered deeds while deferring consideration of other prayers to future hearings.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to implead applicants as party respondents in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014.

Arunkumar J. Patel and 3 Ors. Vs Dinesh Kumar Ramji and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CST103_17.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.103 OF 2017 IN

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.42 OF 2014 IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1115 OF 2010

¶6

Amit Vasant Kenia and others	…	Applicants
In the matter Between
Arunkumar J. Patel and others	…	Petitioners
Vs.
Dinesh Kumar Ramji	…	Respondent

¶7

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Thomas James i/b. Auris Legal for Applicants. Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w. Ms Deepa Poluja and Mr. Srividya Venkat for Petitioners in TP No.1115 of 2010 and for Respondent in MPT No.42 of 2014. Mr. Navin R. Tiwari for Petitioner in MPT No.42 of 2014.

¶8

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2017

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Tamboly, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kapadia, learned Counsel for petitioners in TP No.1115 of 2010 and Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for petitioner in MPT No.42 of 2014 at length.

¶11

By this Chamber Summons, applicants have prayed for directing the petitioners to implead applicants as party respondents in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014.

¶12

Mr. Tamboly submits that at present, he is not pressing prayer clause (b) of the Chamber Summons.

¶13

In support of this Chamber Summons, Mr. Tamboly has invited my attention to the Schedule of properties at exhibit-H, pages 72 to 77.

¶14

1/3

¶15

CST103_17.sxw

¶16

He submitted that by Deed of Conveyance dated 28.03.2012 read with Deed of Rectification dated 27.04.2013, applicants have purchased area admeasuring 609.03 sq.mtrs., bearing formerly survey No.221, plot No.8 and now non agricultural survey No.243/3 and CTS Nos.354/22 to 354/40 of the Revenue Village, Kurla Part 4, Taluka Kurla and District Mumbai Suburban. He submitted that by Deed of Assignment of Lease dated 28.03.2012 read along with Deed of Rectification dated 27.08.2013, leasehold rights are assigned in favour of the applicants in respect of the area admeasuring 1763.16 sq.mtrs. bearing formerly Survey No.221, Plot No.8 and now non-agricultural Survey No.282 Hissa No.1 (part) and CTS No.354, 354/1 to 21 and 354/41 to 50 of the Revenue Village Kurla Part 4, Taluka Kurla and District Mumbai Suburban. By Deed of Assignment of Lease dated 28.03.2012, leasehold rights are assigned in favour of the applicants in respect of East side near the lavatory about 45 feet, on the West side about 28 feet, on the South side about 131'9 and on the North side about 114'9 and bearing formerly Survey No.221 and Municipal No.153A but now nonagricultural Survey No.248, among other properties.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari strenuously contended that the documents relied by the applicants are forged documents and no right is created in favour of the applicants. He has invited my attention to the letter dated 19.06.2012 addressed by applicant No.1 to Advocate J. S. Raymond on behalf of Jagdish Prasad Ramji (petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014) and in particular paragraph 2 thereof. In paragraph 2, applicant No.1 contended that he is not concerned with any inter se disputes between Jagdish Prasad Ramji and his brother Dinesh Kumar Ramji. He submitted that interim order was passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014 in the year 2014 and the applicants did not move this Court. He submitted that while considering

¶18

2/3

¶19

CST103_17.sxw

¶20

the Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014, prayer clause (b) cannot be considered by this Court.

¶21

Mr. Kapadia submitted that after order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Testamentary Petition No.1115 of 2010, interest is created in favour of the applicants as there was no impediment. He submitted that petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014 had filed consent affidavit in Testamentary Petition No.1115 of 2010.

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. Prima facie, the applicants have claimed interest on the basis of the registered instruments, referred hereinabove. In view thereof, prayer clause (a) of Chamber Summons is required to be granted. As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the same will be considered at the time of hearing of Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014. Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.

¶23

List the Miscellaneous Petition No.42 of 2014 on 24.08.2017.

¶24

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶25

Minal Parab

¶26

3/3

Arunkumar J. Patel and 3 Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Ramji and Amit Vasant Kenia and 3 Ors. (Applicant/Interveners)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar J. Patel and 3 Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Ramji and Amit Vasant Kenia and 3 Ors. (Applicant/Interveners)

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

Arun Narayan Patki Vs Narayan Rajaram Patki (Deceased)

Rajendra Natverlal Parikh Vs Kaushalyaben Natverlal Parikh (Deceased)

Nikhil Sumant Mhatre Vs Leelavati Kamalakar Paralkar (Deceased)

Dasharath Maruti Kamble Vs Ganesh Suresh Kamble

Ramniklal Amritlal Padia and Ors. Vs Amritlal Gordhandas Jajal and Vijay a.Gangan and Manjuben Chhaganlal Jogi(Applicant)

The Administrator General Vs Veena Vihar Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. (Applicant)