In this civil appeal, the High Court of Bombay admitted the appeal challenging the rejection of an application for ad-interim orders. The dispute involves property rights and the daughters' claim to visit their elderly mother residing with defendants.
The appeal is admitted for further scrutiny.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(20)APPL30218.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2018 IN NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1290 OF 2018 IN SUIT (L) NO.737 OF 2018
Kiran Shyamlal Bellara and others ..Appellants Versus Narayan @ Rupo Jethanand Bellara and another ..Respondents
Mr. Anuj Desai a/w Mr. A. P. Steenson I/by M/s. APS Law Associates, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Deepak V. Rajbhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for – State.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2018
P.C.
1] The Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th June 2018, vide which the learned Single
Judge has rejected the application of the present Appellants for grant of adinterim orders.
2] Plaintiff No.1 is the sisterinlaw of Defendant Nos.1 and
3] It is the case of the Appellants that the Appellant No.1
BGP. 1 o f 2
(20)APPL30218.doc .
alongwith her deceased husband was residing on the second floor of the house owned by the Bellara family.
4] Per contra, it is the claim of the Defendants that there was already partition and the Appellant No.1 has encroached upon the property in question. It is their submission that as such Appellant No.1 has no claim in the property and the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 who are daughters of the Appellant No.1 tried to create right in the property.
5] Primafacie, we are of the considered view that since the relationship between parties is not disputed, the limited relief which was sought by the Plaintiffs ought to have been granted. Undisputedly, Plaintiff No.1 is an old lady and Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 are her two daughters. It will be necessary for the Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 to visit Plaintiff No.1 in order to take care of her well being. We are of the primafacie view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge requires to be scrutinized in the present Appeal. The Appeal is therefore admitted.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
BGP. 2 o f 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the ad-interim application for visitation rights of daughters to care for their elderly mother.
Whether the undisputed relationship between plaintiffs and defendant precludes granting limited relief in an appeal challenging rejection of ad-interim orders.
Kiran Shyamlal Bellara and others
Narayan @ Rupo Jethanand Bellara and another
B. R. Gavai
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
