Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
MHCC010034042020
Presented on : 15.05.2020
Registered on : 15.05.2020
Decided on : 27.11.2025
Duration : 5Y 6M 14D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1225 OF 2020
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 869 OF 2021
Mr. Rajinder Singh Gill ... Plaintiff
- Versus -
Charanjit Singh Gill & Ors. … Defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. H. C. SHENDE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 27th NOVEMBER, 2025.
Appearance :-
Mr. Ravindra Singh, advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Firdos, advocate for defendant No.2.
O R D E R
By way of this notice of motion the plaintiff prayed to pass
temporary order and injunction.
2. The present notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff. It is
contended by the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are
brothers and defendant No.2 is wife of his brother i.e. defendant No.1.
There was some dispute in between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and as a
result matrimonial litigation filed by them before the court. Further as
Page 1/5
-- 1 of 6 --
N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
per the plaintiff, the suit flat which are suit property in the present
matter were i.e. flat Nos.201 and 203 purchased by mother and
defendant No.1. Flat No. 201 purchased by defendant No.1 and mother
jointly whereas flat No. 203 purchased exclusively in the name of
defendant No.1. However, according to the plaintiff, those were
purchased for the benefit of the entire family and therefore the
defendant No.1 do not have any exclusive right in respect of those flats.
In the meantime the plaintiff got knowledge that the petition for judicial
separation filed by the defendant No.1 and 2 and decree of divorce was
obtained. During the pendency of said petition the defendant No.2
caused defendant No.1 to make signature on some documents which
purported to the Gift Deed of the suit premises and by virtue of the
same the defendant No.1 has allegedly transferred both flats and/or
gifted those flats to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff was not aware
about any such deed and transfer. The matrimonial matter settled
between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 amicably. The defendant No.2 did
not have any right to make Gift Deed of the property and to transfer it
in favour of the defendant No.2. So as per the plaintiff, the said Gift
Deed as not binding upon the present plaintiff as plaintiff is having his
right, share in the suit flat purchased for the family. Therefore, the suit
is brought with relief as to declare the Gift Deed as null and void in
respect of suit flat Nos. 201, 203 including the share certificate which
allegedly transferred in the name of defendants. The plaintiff also asked
injunction order restraining defendants from creating third party right
in the suit property. The present notice of motion therefore taken out by
the plaintiff by making same prayers to be granted in his favour till final
disposal of the suit. The notice of motion supported by the affidavit.
Page 2/5
-- 2 of 6 --
N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
3. Reply to the notice of motion filed by the defendant No.2.
According to the defendant No.2, suit and notice of motion filed by the
plaintiff is misuse of law and devoid on merit. The plaintiff is not come
with clean hands. The reliefs prayed by the plaintiff is suppresio veri
and suggestio falsi and it be dismissed with heavy costs. There is no
urgency in deciding the matter. Harassment caused by defendant No.2
while she was staying with the members of his matrimonial home. The
plaintiff did not have any right, authority to make any claim about the
property. The plaintiff along-with defendant No.1 are tried to confuse
the court as they are fully aware that the mother transferred her share
in flat Nos.201 and 203 in the year 2002 itself and it was much prior to
any divorce decree. This false attempt made by the plaintiff to cause
mental harassment to the defendants. After huge time gap he suddenly
came before the court by filing of the suit. The notice of motion needs
to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides at length. Perused the record.
5. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff during course of arguments
submitted that, they are not pressing the prayer clause (b) which is for
appointment of Court Receiver under Order XXXX Rule 1 of the C. P. C.
They are pressing prayer clause (a) only for restraining the defendants
from creating third party in the suit property. Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff submitted that, the flat No.201 purchased by their mother with
defendant No.1 though the flat No.203 purchased exclusively in the
name of defendant No.1. The plaint show in order to that the possession
of the flat No.201 was given to their mother and flat No.203 to the
defendant No.1 produced possession receipts prima facie showing
Page 3/5
-- 3 of 6 --
N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
granting possession. But as per the plaintiff, both flats purchased for
entire family and not for benefit of the defendant No.1. Here we must
note that as per the contention made by the defendant No.2 in reply,
her mother in law transferred flat No.201 in her name and flat No.203
was given by the defendant No.1. Further according to the defendant
No.2, the mother was holding 50% share in the suit flat No.201 which
she has transferred. The present suit is not maintainable and there is no
need to grant any injunction as asked by the plaintiff.
6. On this backdrop on going through the record, more
particularly documents relied by the plaintiff, copy of possession of two
different flats Nos.201 and 203 and admitted facts about the relations
intersay between the parties. This court finds that, there appears prima
facie case in favour of the plaintiff for passing order but for limited
injunction that till decision of the suit, the defendants should not create
any third party right, interest in the suit flat Nos. 201 and 203 (more
particularly described in the plaint). The court is of the opinion that the
mother is having interest in the property, then certainly the question
would arise about the share of the plaintiff in the suit property. The
defendants though contending that the Gift Deeds are created, but this
question needs to be decided during trial on evidence. The defendants
also argued that, the suit is barred by limitation. However, at this
primary stage we cannot jump over the conclusion that, suit is time
barred because limitation is mix question of law and fact. However, the
circumstance suggesting that initially flat purchased in the name of
mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The trial of the suit will
take time and if till the third party interest is created in the flat, then it
will certainly caused prejudice to the plaintiff. The whole purpose of
Page 4/5
-- 4 of 6 --
N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
filing suit would get frustrated and there may be increase of litigation.
Hence court finds it necessary to pass order of granting limited
injunction as per the final order.
7. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the court in
present circumstances proceed to pass the following order :-
O R D E R
1. Notice of motion No.1225/2020 in suit No.869/2021 is
partly allowed.
2. The defendants or any person acting for and on behalf of
defendants are hereby restrain from creating third party
right, interest in any manner in the suit property
(specifically mentioned in the plaint) till final disposal of the
suit.
3. The parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the
suit.
4. The findings made in the notice of motion are prima facie
and it will not influenced or affect the trial or final order of
this matter.
5. Proceeding of notice of motion No. 1225/2020 in suit
No.869/2021 is closed.
Date : 27.11.2025 (H. C. Shende )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 27.11.2025
Transcribed on : 28.11.2025
Checked & Signed on : 29.11.2025
Page 5/5
-- 5 of 6 --
N/M. No.1225/20 (SC No.869/21)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
29.11.2025 at 5.30 pm ( Samruddhi Jadhav)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt.H. C. Shende (C.R.No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
27.11.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
28.11.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 29.11.2025
Page 6/5
-- 6 of 6 --