Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2317 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.1400 OF 2019
Harikishan Nanakchand Khosla ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt.Veena Khosla,
2. Kasturial Khosla S/o.Nanakhchand Khosla,
3. Tarun Khosla s/o Amarnath Khosla,
4. Gautam Khosla s/o Amarnath Khosla,
5. Smt. Sneha Obhan,
6. Daman Khosla s/o Kasturilal Khosla,
7. Gunjan Khosla s/o Harikishan Khosla, ... Defendants
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI K.P.NANDEDKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.9)
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2019
Mr.Omprakash Pandey, ld. adv. for plaintiff.
Mr.Pravin G.Sawant, ld adv. for defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7.
O R D E R
1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff for
temporary injunction restraining defendants, their family members,
agents hirelings or any persons claiming through defendants from
dealing with, disposing off or creating third party right, claim in suit
properties or obtaining any loan from bank or financial institution or
individuals against suit properties or any one of them in any manner of
whatsoever nature. Plaintiff has also claimed temporary injunction
against defendants for restraining them from dispossessing plaintiff
from suit properties or taking forcible possession of suit properties or
disturbing plaintiff and his family members' peaceful use, occupation,
-- 1 of 17 --
:2: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
possession and peaceful enjoyment in respect of the suit properties
which are mentioned in schedule annexed to the plaint which is marked
as Exh.A. Plaintiff has also prayed for appointment of Court Receiver in
respect of suit properties.
2. Plaintiff Harikishan Nanakchand Khosla has field his
affidavit in support of notice of motion contending that plaintiff and
defendants are belonging to Hindu undivided joint family and plaintiff
and defendants are coparceners of Hindu undivided joint family.
Defendant no.1 Smt.Veena wd/o.Amarnath Khosla is sisterinlaw of
plaintiff. Defendant no.2 Kasturilal s/o Nanakchand Khosla is elder
brother of plaintiff. Defendant no.3 Tarun s/o.Amarnath Khosla is
nephew of plaintiff, defendant no.4 Gautam s/o. Amarnath Khosla is
also nephew of plaintiff, defendant no.5 Smt.Sneha Obhan Nee Sneha
d/o. Amarnath Khosla is married niece of plaintiff and defendant no.6
Daman s/o. Kasturilal Khosla is nephew of plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff has contended that his father namely Nanakchand
Khosla died on 13/01/1988 at Mumbai leaving behind him Amarnath
Khosla, Kasturilal Khosla and plaintiff as legal heirs and representatives.
Amarnath Khosla died on 28/01/2005. Amarnath Khosla was Karta of
Hindu Undivided joint family. Plaintiff and defendants are belonging to
Hindu undivided family, coparceners of said Hindu undivided family
hence are having equal share, right, title and interest in all suit
properties. It is contended that plaintiff and defendants were indulged
in a business of selling Car accessories and spare parts under the name
and style as Khosla Automobiles at Sion and M/s. Khosla Enterprises at
Santacruz. Said business is joint family business belonging to plaintiff
and defendants.
-- 2 of 17 --
:3: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
4. Plaintiff has contended that originally plaintiff's father
Nanakchand Khosla was Karta of family and after Nanakchand,
Amarnath Khosla being elder son of Nanakchand became Karta of
Hindu undivided joint family. Said Nanakchand Khosla during his
lifetime has acquired house properties either in the name of Amarnath
Khosla or in the name of Veena Khosla, wife of Amarnath Khosla or in
the name of Tarun Khosla or in the name of Gautam Khosla or in the
name of Sneha Obhan or Daman Khosla. Those properties are shop
no.5A, plot no.234, Shiv Niwas, Near G.T.B. Nagar, Sion(E), Mumbai
400 022 which is purchased pursuant to agreement for sale dated
30/07/1998 executed between vendor Imamuddin and Amarnath
Khosla as purchaser. Another property from its shop no.5, plot no.234,
Shiv Niwas, Near G.T.B. Nagar, Sion(E), Mumbai22 which is purchased
pursuant to the agreement dated 28/10/1993 in the name of Khosla
Automobiles. Said property also includes shop no.4, ground floor , Anu
Apartment, now known as Santaruz Anu apartment CHS Ltd. opposite
to Milan Subway Road, Santacruz(W), Mumbai54 which was
purchased pursuant to the sale deed dated 17/02/2005 executed
between M/s.Neoshine Varnishes as Vendor and Mrs.Veena Khosla, Mrs.
Pramila Khosla and Mrs.Rita Khosla as purchasers. Said property
including bungalow known as Block No.23B, Anand Nagar, Plot
No.290, Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, Sion(E), Mumbai37 are mentioned
in schedule which is annexed to the plaint as Exh.A.
5. Plaintiff has contended that plaintiff's elder brother
Amarnath Khosla died on 28/01/2005 and after the death of Amarnath,
Smt.Veena Khosala, the wife of Amarnath Khosla, became Karta of
Hindu Undivided Joint Family and at present Smt.Veena Khosla is Karta
and head of Hindu undivided joint family. It is contended that pursuant
-- 3 of 17 --
:4: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
to the indenture of sale dated 02/08/1975 executed between Smt.Maya
Girdharilal as Vendor and Amarnath as purchaser, block no.23B
situated at Anand Nagar, plot no.290A (Pt), F/N Ward, C.S.No.89, next
to Bank of India, Op.Kalpataru Towers, Anand Nagar, Flank Road,
Sion(E), Mumbai37, admeasuring 1880 sq.ft. consisting of ground plus
2 upper floors is used for residential purpose wherein plaintiff and
defendants are jointly residing together.
6. Plaintiff has contended that pursuant to the agreement
dated 30/07/1998 executed between vendor Imamuddin and Amarnath
Khosla shop no.5A, plot no.234, shiv Niwas, Near G.T.B. Nagar, Near
Railway Station, Sion(E), Mumbai22 was purchased on payment of full
and final consideration amount wherein the business of automobile is
conducted. Pursuant to the agreement dated 28/10/1993 executed
between vendor Imamuddin and purchaser M/s. Khosla Automobiles,
shop no.5, plot no.234, Shiv Niwas, Near G.T.B. Nagar Sion(E),
Mumbai was purchased along with share certificate no.112 issued by
Bombay Sion Shiv Niwas Cooperative Society Ltd. fully paid up shares
with distinctive share Nos.56 to 60 of Rs.50/ each. Pursuant to the sale
deed dated 17/02/2005 executed between vendor M/s.Neoshine
Varnishes and purchaser Mrs.Veena Khosla, Mrs.Pramila Kosla and
Mrs.Rita Khosla, shop no.4 situated on the ground floor of Anu
apartment now known as Santacruz Anu Apartment CHS Ltd. Opp.
Milan Subway Road, Santacruz(W), Mumbai54 was purchased on
payment of valuable consideration on terms and conditions mentioned
in sale deed dated 17/02/2005. Further pursuant to agreement dated
10/03/1979, two shops bearing shop nos.5 and 6 situated on the
ground floor of Anu Apartment were purchased in the name of Khosla
Automobiles.
-- 4 of 17 --
:5: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
7. Plaintiff has contended that he also participated in
daytoday business affairs of Khosla Automobiles and Khosla
Enterprises. It is contended that after death of Amarnath Khosla, in
order to avoid family dispute, plaintiff and defendants in presence of
elder persons of the community had prepared the family settlement
dated 28/05/2014 wherein it is specifically agreed that suit properties
belong to plaintiff and defendants and all the coparceners are having
equal right, title, interest and claim in suit properties. It is also agreed
in said family settlement that the parties to it will act according to terms
and conditions as set out in said family settlement and it will be valid,
subsisting and binding on plaintiff as well as defendants. It is agreed
that said family settlement will never be terminated or cancelled by any
party to the said settlement dated 28/05/2014. It is contended that the
price of the properties in Mumbai is highly increased and therefore, the
defendant turned dishonest and in order to grab plaintiff's valuable
share, right, title and interest in suit property, hence defendants have
executed registered Deed of Release dated 26/03/2015 in collusion and
joint glove hands with each other. Said release deed was executed
between Tarun Khosla as the party on one hand and Gautam Khosla as
party of the second part and Smt.Sneha Obhan Nee Sneha as Releasors
on one hand and Smt.Veena Khosla as Releasee on the other hand.
Said Release Deed is executed in respect of residential house i.e. block
no.23B situated at Anad Nagar, Sion(E), Mumbai34. Said Release Deed
is executed without plaintiff's consent and knowledge. It is alleged that
said release deed is executed with malafide intention to grab suit
property and to grab plaintiff's valuable share, right, title and interest in
suit properties.
-- 5 of 17 --
:6: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
8. Plaintiff has contended that one affidavit dated
11/03/3015 is also executed by defendants in collusion of each other,
dividing their shares stating therein that only defendants Smt.Veena
Khosla and Smt.Sneha Obhan are having shares over suit property.
Plaintiff has alleged that on the basis of so called power of attorney
dated 16/02/2010 Amarnath Khosla has signed Release Deed as power
of attorney holder of Gautam Khosla. Further Gautam Khosla also
executed irrevocable power of attorney dated 16/08/2010 behind back
of plaintiff and without plaintiff's knowledge and consent.
9. It is contended that defendants have paid plaintiff's share
from suit properties to plaintiff for the period upto month January,
2019 and thereafter defendants stopped to pay plaintiff's share from the
income of suit properties and from income fetching from Khosla
Enterprises and Khosla Automobiles. It is alleged that defendants are
siphoning funds for their personal use and defendants are not inclined
to render true and faithful account of income to plaintiff. It is alleged
that defendants are acting against the interest of plaintiff's share from
suit property.
10. It is contended that all of sudden on 15/03/2019 plaintiff
found on the table lying in the hall room of residential premises, a copy
of release deed dated 26/03/2015 and after going through its contents
for first time plaintiff came to know that behind his back defendants
have executed said release deed dated 26/03/2015. Thereafter, plaintiff
came to know that defendants are attempting to obtain loan from bank
and financial institutions against suit properties behind back of plaintiff
and without knowledge, consent or permission of plaintiff. On inquiry
with defendants about release deed dated 26/03/2015 defendants told
-- 6 of 17 --
:7: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
plaintiff that defendants are not inclined to furnish full disclosure and
and information to plaintiff therefore plaintiff suspected some foul play
on the part of defendants.
11. It is contended that when plaintiff inquired with
defendants in the month of February, 2019 about plaintiff's share from
income derived from the suit properties and suit business of Khosla
Enterprises and Khosla Automobiles, defendants failed to give any
proper reply and defendants told that suit properties belong to them
and they further told that plaintiff has no share in suit properties. It is
alleged that defendants are not inclined to give any faithful account of
income derived from suit properties to plaintiff.
12. It is contended that plaintiff got shocked and surprised to
look at the illegal and high handed activities, dishonest attitude and
malafide intention and ulterior motive on the part of defendants.
Hence, it becomes clear in the mind of plaintiff that defendants have
got executed release deed dated 26/03/2015 amongst themselves in
order to grab suit property and in order to deprive plaintiff from his
valuable share, right title and interest and claim in suit business carried
from suit properties. It is contended that Khosla Automobiles and
Khosla Enterprises have good reputation in the business circle and
market more particularly for accessories of Cars and 4 Wheelers and
there are a lot of customers visiting for purchasing Car accessories and
therefore, they are fetching income deriving from the said business
without disclosing true and correct and faithful account of the income
to plaintiff. It is contended that plaintiff was surprised to listen the
answer given by the defendants to the effect that plaintiff is not having
any share in the income derived from suit properties and from the
-- 7 of 17 --
:8: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
business. It is contended that on 28/05/2014 there was family
settlement in order to avoid family dispute amongst plaintiff and
defendants and in said family settlement defendants have admitted that
plaintiff is having equal share, right, interest and claim in suit properties
along with defendants. When plaintiff informed defendants about said
family settlement, defendants vehemently replied that they do not
bother about said family settlement. Defendants further threatened
plaintiff not to visit business place and not to participate in business
affairs. Defendants also threatened plaintiff to arrange separate
residential accommodation for plaintiff and his family. Hence, plaintiff
was surprised with the illegal activities of defendants. Therefore, on
25/04/2019 plaintiff filed complaint with police authorities.
13. It is contended that in above circumstances it appears that
defendants have turned dishonest and they want to grab plaintiff's
valuable right, title and interest in suit property therefore plaintiff has
filed this suit and he is entitled to the declaration as prayed for to the
effect that family settlement deed dated 28/05/2014 is valid, subsisting
and binding upon plaintiff as well as defendants or suit properties
described in scheduleA annexed to the plaint. It is contended that
plaintiff is also entitled to the declaration that release deed dated
26/03/2015 is illegal, bad in law, ab initio and not enforcible and liable
to be set aside or quashed.
14. It is contended that it is just necessary and proper to
declare affidavit dated 11/03/2015 executed by Smt.Veena Khosla is
void, ab initio and not binding upon plaintiff as well as suit properties
along with declaration that power of attorney dated 16/08/2010
executed executed by Gautam Khosla in favour of Tarun Khosla is void,
ab initio and not binding upon plaintiff as well as to the suit properties.
-- 8 of 17 --
:9: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
15. It is contended that since there is fetching of income from
Khosla Automobiles and Khosla Enterprises, there is no person to
maintain true, faithful and correct account and defendants are not
allowing plaintiff to maintain business account. It is alleged that
defendants also are not giving plaintiff true, faithful and correct account
of day today business of Khosla Automobiles and Khosla Enterprises
therefore, according to plaintiff, appointment of Court Receiver is
necessary in the matter. It is contended that plaintiff is apprehending
danger that in order to grab suit properties and in order to deprive
plaintiff from his share, right title and interest in suit properties,
defendants may deal with, dispose of, mortgage, obtain loan from bank,
financial institutions and from individuals against the suit properties
therefore, temporary injunction as prayed is necessary to be granted. It
is contended that suit properties are the only sources of livelihood of
plaintiff and his family members and except suit properties there is no
alternate business premises or residential premises for plaintiff and
hence according to plaintiff, the reliefs prayed in notice of motion are
necessary to be granted. It is contended that if the reliefs as prayed will
not be granted plaintiff will suffer from irreparable loss, harm, damage,
injury, prejudice and great hardship will be caused to him which cannot
be compensated in terms of money. Further according to plaintiff, if the
reliefs as prayed will be granted no harm will be caused to defendants.
If adinterim will be granted no harm will be caused to defendants.
Lastly, it is contended that balance of conveyance lies in favour of
plaintiff.
16. Defendant no.6 Daman Kasturilal Khosla has filed his
affidavit of reply and resisted the notice of motion filed by plaintiff. It is
-- 9 of 17 --
:10: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
contended that plaintiff's claim is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed. It is alleged that plaintiff has not come before the Court with
clean hands and plaintiff has made false statements on oath. It is
further alleged that plaintiff has filed this suit with ulterior motive by
misleading the Court. Plaintiff has prayed for injunction order in respect
of suit property. It is alleged that present suit is outcome of plaintiff's
illegal intention to grab suit properties by creating false, bogus and
concocted story. Hence it is contended that family settlement deed
dated 28/05/2014 is registered document.
17. Defendant no.6 has contended that this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain this suit because value of the suit property and
value of share of defendant no.6 is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court. Further according to defendant, plaintiff's claim is barred by law
of limitation because Release Deed dated 26/03/2015 is challenged in
this suit. It is also contended that no cause of action exists for filing of
this suit. It is pointed out that the cause title of the plaint shows that
plaintiff and defendants are residing at same place and in plaint
plaintiff has contended that plaintiff's share upto January, 2019 was
paid to plaintiff. Hence, according to defendants, contents of plaint
itself falsify plaintiff's case to the effect that plaintiff has been deprived
of suit properties and income derived out of suit properties. It is
admitted that family of plaintiff and defendants is Hindu undivided
joint family and plaintiff as well as defendants are coparceners of said
family. Relation between parties are also admitted and it is admitted
that late Mr.Nanakchand Khosla expired on 13/01/1988 leaving behind
his sons. It is also admitted that Amarnath Khosla died on 28/01/2005
and he was Karta of Hindu undivided family. It is further admitted that
all the members of said family are having equal, right, title and interest
-- 10 of 17 --
:11: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
in all the properties. It is also admitted that the business of sale of Car
accessories namely Khosla Automobiles at Sion and Khosla Enterprises
at Santacruz are running by plaintiff and defendants, however it is
denied that late Mr.Nanakchand Khosla in his lifetime acquired the
properties in the name of his wife, son and daughter and those
properties are undivided properties of joint Hindu family. It is admitted
that properties referred in ScheduleA annexed to the plaint are
purchased by late Nanakchand Khosla therein the names of his wife,
sons or daughter.
18. Defendant no.6 has denied that the plaintiff is participating
in daytoday business affairs of Khosla Automobiles and Khosla
Enterprises. It is contended that plaintiff is not active in day today
business and affairs of Khosla Automobiles and Khosla Enterprises and
plaintiff is not taking part in day today affairs of said business. It is
contended that plaintiff is not attending office of said business. It is
denied that in order to grab valuable share of plaintiff, defendants have
jointly in hand in glove with each other executed the disputed Release
Deed. It is contended that bungalow referred in said release deed is not
joint family property but it was standing in the name of Amarnath
Khosla and after death of Amarnath Khosla said property vests in the
legal heirs of Amarnath Khosla i.e. vested in defendant nos.1, 3 and 4.
It is denied that defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 had executed affidavit
denying claim of other family members. It is contended that since the
property referred in said affidavit was solely owned by Amarnath Khosla
it vests on defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 therefore, no question arises of
depriving plaintiff from share in said property. It is denied that there
was no consent obtained from plaintiff for executing irrevocable power
of attorney dated 16/08/2010 because said power of attorney is not
-- 11 of 17 --
:12: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
related to the joint Hindu family property. It is denied that defendants
stopped paying share from the business of the family to plaintiff. It is
alleged that plaintiff has raised his demand with a view to create
unnecessary quarrel and plaintiff has started adopting different tactics
and this suit is one of such tactics. It is denied that on 15/03/2019 for
the first time plaintiff came to know about Release Deed dated
26/03/2015. It is denied that plaintiff's claim is within limitation. It is
denied that said Release Deed is executed to deprive plaintiff from his
share from suit property. It is further contended that property at
Sr.no.4 from ScheduleA annexed to the plaint is already mortgaged
with Moogavera Bank in view to obtain loan.
19. Defendant nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 to 7 also have filed same
affidavit of reply as like affidavit of defendant no.6 and those
defendants also have resisted the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff has filed his
affidavit of rejoinder and contended that defendants have suppressed
vital documents and vital facts from the Court and it is alleged that by
suppressing those documents and facts defendants have played fraud
upon court. It is denied that plaintiff's claim is beyond pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that market value of share of
defendants is high. It is alleged that defendants are taking undue
advantage of their own wrong by not maintaining account of cash
counter of Khosla Enterprises and Khosla Automobiles. Hence,
according to plaintiff, the reliefs as prayed in notice of motion are
necessary to be granted. It is further contended that the mortgage of
suit property with Moogavera Bank was made by defendants without
knowledge of plaintiff hence defendants have acted against right, title
and interest of plaintiff from suit property. Therefore, according to
plaintiff, defendants have acted illegally while obtaining said loan. It is
-- 12 of 17 --
:13: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
alleged that defendants are misusing disputed Released Deed and
defendants have not disclosed what much loan obtained from
Moogavera Bank. Hence, according to plaintiff, notice of motion is
necessary to be absolute.
20. I have heard plaintiff's advocate Mr.Pandey and defendants'
advocate Mr.Sawant at length. Plaintiff's advocate has referred the copy
of family settlement and copy of disputed Release Deed filed with plaint
and it is argued that family settlement proves the fact that suit property
is joint family property, however defendants are not allowing plaintiff to
participate in joint family business therefore, plaintiff is required to file
this suit. Para5 affidavit filed in support of notice of motion is referred
by plaintiff's advocate and it is pointed out that on 26/04/2019 plaintiff
has filed complaint on 26/04/2019 with police as he was participating
in family business. It is further argued on behalf of plaintiff that
plaintiff was participating joint family business on the basis of family
settlement and according to advocate Mr.Pandey plaintiff has right, title
and interest in the suit property therefore Court Receiver is necessary to
be appointed for the purpose of disputed business for maintaining its
account. It is also argued that other reliefs prayed in the notice of
motion are in respect of creating third party interest of defendants in
suit property, dispossessing plaintiff from suit property and all the
reliefs they are necessary to be granted.
21. Defendants' advocate Mr.Sawant argued that plaitniff is not
participating in disputed business and plaintiff has falsely contended
that in the moth of April, 2019 plaintiff had seen Release Deed dated
26/03/2015 lying on the table. It is argued that said false ground is
raised by plaintiff to bring his claim about Release Deed in limitation
-- 13 of 17 --
:14: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
and therefore, there is no reason to believe plaintiff's contention.
Defendants' advocate argued that if at all Court will appoint Court
Receiver for the purpose of running disputed business defendants may
be appointed as agent of Court Receiver. Lastly, it is contended that
plaintiff is not at all entitled to the reliefs as prayed in notice of motion.
22. I have given serious consideration to the arguments
advanced on behalf of parties. I have carefully perused the documents
annexed to the plaint. It is alleged by plaintiff that defendants are not
allowing plaintiff to participate in the business of Khosla Automobiles
and Khosla Enterprises, however plaintiff has not specifically pleaded
that since which date he is prevented from participating in said
business. Not only it, plaintiff has not pleaded that in said business what
kind of role plaintiff used to perform as participating person in said
business. I have given attention to the copy of report dated
26/04/2019 filed by plaintiff with police authorities of Antop Hill Police
Station, Santaruz Police Station and Sion Police Station, however in
said reports also plaintiff has not given any specific incident so as to
attract attention of police for taking cognizance of the allegations made
by the plaintiff and for taking action in respect of allegations made by
plaintiff. As like said police reports in plaint also plaintiff has made all
the vague allegations. Plaintiff has not given specific date about the
denial of defendants or refusal of defendants in respect of plaintiff's
share from income fetching from joint family business. Most important
aspect is that plaintiff is party to the family settlement dated
28/05/2014. On careful perusal of said family settlement which is filed
at Exh.G with the plaint, I have noticed that said family settlement is
written on stamp of Rs.100/. On careful perusal of said family
settlement I have noticed that it is mentioned in said family settlement
-- 14 of 17 --
:15: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
that to avoid family dispute between parties to the said family
settlement said document was entered into. On perusal of the disputed
family settlement it is noticed by me that said family settlement is the
document of family arrangement between the parties. Said family
settlement is signed by Veena Khosla, Kasturilal Khosla, plaintiff
Harikishan Khosla, Tarun Khosla, Gautam Khosla, Smt.Sneha Obhan
Nee Sneha d/o. Amarnath Khosla and person namely Vickey Patil and
Deepa Sarangkar. Said document of family settlement is notarized one.
I am unable to understand as to why plaintiff has not taken care to get
registered said document of family settlement. Any how, the disputed
Release Deed on the contrary is registered document. The document
which is registered definitely will have more weightage against
unregistered document. In such circumstances, I find that prima facie it
cannot be believed that the disputed Release Deed in question is illegal.
For proving his case about validity of disputed released deed plaintiff
will have to adduce cogent evidence and defendants should get the
opportunity to rebut plaintiff's such evidence. Hence, unless parties to
the suit adduce the evidence and unless the Court comes to conclusion
on merits that the disputed release deed is not valid, I find that reliefs
as prayed in notice of motion cannot be granted. It is admitted fact that
plaintiff and defendants are residing in same house under same roof, if
really the dispute between the parties would not have reached to such
aggravated extent as alleged by plaintiff, definitely defendants would
not have allowed plaintiff to reside together with them. This is the
interesting suit in which plaintiff has made all the allegations in vague
words and nothing specific is pleaded by plaintiff. Merely because there
is one family settlement document it cannot be said that plaintiff's case
is worthy to be considered for granting the reliefs as prayed in notice of
motion. Plaintiff has contended that defendants are not allowing
-- 15 of 17 --
:16: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
plaintiff to participate in the daytoday business and affairs of Khosla
Enterprises and Khosla Automobiles, plaintiff himself has not clarified
that what kind of role he had in said business. From careful perusal of
pleadings of the parties what I have noticed is that plaintiff himself has
got misunderstanding in his mind. If really defendants would have
executed disputed release deed dated 26/03/2015 to deprive plaintiff's
share, right, title and interest in suit property, defendants would not
have allowed said valuable release deed to lay on a table in a hall from
the house. Thus it seems that all the documents referred by plaintiff
were executed by the parties with understanding of each other for
business purpose and now out of misunderstanding plaintiff is intending
to have benefit of such document. However, merely on the basis of
vague allegations made by plaintiff in plaint and in affidavit filed in
support of notice of motion, I am unable to accept that serious reliefs as
prayed by plaintiff in notice of motion can be granted. Hence, I have
no alternate but to reject the notice of motion. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following order.
O R D E R
Notice of Motion No.2317 of 2019 stands dismissed/disposed off.
Sd/
(K.P.NANDEDKAR)
04/09/2019 JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 04/09/2019
Transcribed on : 17/09/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 23/09/2019
-- 16 of 17 --
:17: NM.2317/19 IN SUIT1400/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
24/09/2019 11.15AM B.R.HATEKAR S.G.
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri K.P.NANDEDKAR(CR No.9)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 04/09/2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 23/09/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 24/09/2019
-- 17 of 17 --