Disposed

Halima Ibrahim Lokhandwala v. Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala

Bombay HC3 Jul 2024LPETN/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought Clause 12 Letters Patent leave to sue for shares in a deceased's estate where some immovable properties lie outside Mumbai, in Gujarat. Relying on prior decisions holding such estate-administration suits are not suits for land, the Court granted the leave and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent granted to file the suit including properties outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction; liberty on authenticated copy.

Halima Ibrahim Lokhandwala vs Sabir Ibrahim… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

LPETN 8-24 @ SL 12635-24.doc

¶2

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

¶3

LEAVE PETITION NO. 8 OF 2024

¶4

Halima Ibrahim Lokhandwala & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s.

¶5

Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Simran Wagle i/b Ms. Uma K. Wagle, Advocate for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 3^rd JULY, 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This Petition seeks leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to

¶10

institute suit against the Defendants in respect of the movable and immovable properties that are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶11

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2024.07.03 19:25:32 +0530

¶12

Ms. Wagle, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioners and submits that the Plaintiff No. 1, who has the Power of Attorney for the other Plaintiffs and who are the children of one wife of the deceased father are desirous of filing the suit for their share in the estate of the deceased against the two Defendants, who are the children of the other wife of the deceased in respect of the movable and immovable properties of the deceased. Learned Counsel submits that although the

¶13

Nikita Gadgil 1/4

¶14

LPETN 8-24 @ SL 12635-24.doc

¶15

Defendants are residing in Mumbai, however, some of the immovable properties in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court in Gujarat and therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Dipika Hitendra Shah and Anr. Vs. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah¹ with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, granted by this Court, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose the suit. Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition and paragraph 34 of the Plaint in support of her contentions.

¶16

In the case of Jaspal Sawhney Vs. Joginder Sawhney and Anr.²

¶17

after considering the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hatimbhai Hassanally Vs. Framroz Eduljee Dinshaw³ as well as decision of the Privy Council in the case of Benode Bihari Bose Vs. Nistarini Dassi,⁴ this Court has observed that where adjudication of the title has not been prayed for, the suit would not be a suit for land as although it may relate to land, yet if its primary object is to administer the estate of the deceased, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, although the land or any part of it may be outside

¶18

1 LPETNL 11286/24 dated 19^th April, 2024.

¶19

2 2014 SCC Online Bom 1183

¶20

3 AIR 1927 Bom 278

¶21

4 (1904-05) 9 CWN 961

¶22

Nikita Gadgil 2/4

¶23

LPETN 8-24 @ SL 12635-24.doc

¶24

the jurisdiction. In paragraph No.33 of the said decision, this Court observed that therefore Clause XII of the Letters Patent would squarely be applicable, even though some properties of the estate of the deceased were situate outside Greater Mumbai and could be adjudicated by this Court upon leave being granted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dipika Hitendra Shah and Anr. Vs. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah (supra) where Clause 12 leave was granted in an administration suit seeking administration and partition of the estate of the deceased parents who had died intestate and where some of the properties were located within the jurisdiction of this Court and some in Gujarat, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has passed the said order granting the Clause 12 leave relying upon the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Jaspal Sawhney Vs. Joginder Sawhney and Anr (supra).

¶25

In the facts of the present case, the suit is proposed to be filed in respect of the properties within Mumbai as well as some immovable properties outside Mumbai, in the State of Gujarat as set out in paragraph 3 of the Petition. In view of the above discussion, the suit would not be a suit for land but for share in the estate of the deceased.

¶26

Nikita Gadgil 3/4

¶27

LPETN 8-24 @ SL 12635-24.doc

¶28

Therefore, having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions in the light of the averments in the Plaint and in the Petition and for reasons stated therein and also submitted before this Court, this Court is of the view that leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be granted.

¶29

Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is hereby granted in terms of prayer Clause (a), which reads thus:-

¶30

“a. Leave be granted to the Petitioners under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file the suit in this Hon’ble Court also pertaining to the properties which are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.”

¶31

The Petition accordingly stands disposed. Liberty to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

¶32

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶33

Nikita Gadgil 4/4

Halima Ibrahim Lokhandwala v. Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halima Ibrahim Lokhandwala v. Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samartha Development Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Bhagwandas Ramchandra Bhattad

Kapil Puri/ Applicant vs Rupendrasing Arora / Respondent

Indusind Bank Limited vs Artedz Fabs Private Limited and 2 Ors.

Shraddha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. vs Ekta Housing Private Limited

Bharatkumar Amritlal Thakar and 2 Ors. vs Sumanth Bolar (Decd.) L/H 1(a) Chandrakala. Chandar 1(b) Deepa. Kochery 1(c) Divya. Chandar