1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1957 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1782 OF 2005 Naresh Jivraj Solanki ...Plaintiff Vs. Hirabhai Jethabhai Sosa ...Defendant And Mrs. Pushpa H. Sosa ...Applicant Mr.Ramesh Jain for Plaintiff Mr.A.G.Damle with Ms. S. Patil for Applicant CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 11 TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the wife of the Defendant against whom Ex-parte decree is passed in this Suit. The Chamber Summons is for raising the attachment levied on Shop No.8, Dhruvika Kids, Ground floor, Hawkers Plazza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (East), Mumbai- 400 025. The Applicant contends that the shop cannot be attached, because it belongs to her as the tenant of the BMC, which has been transferred in her name and the Shops and Establishment License is in her name. 2 2. The Applicant claims to have acquired the above shop from one Ramchandra Devji Salvi under an unregistered agreement executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- issued on 22 nd February, 2006. The agreement shows Rs.1,20,000 /- paid by the Applicant to Ramchandra D. Salvi in cash. 3. The Applicant also relies upon the affidavit of Ramchandra D. Salvi with regard to the transaction. 4. The case of the Applicant is that, she had given financial help in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to Ramchandra D. Salvi and since he could not repay the amount to her, he transferred the above shop to her instead. 5. The shop belongs to the BMC and, hence the Applicant applied to the BMC on 24 th February, 2006 for transfer of the shop in her name. On 1st March, 2006 the BMC transferred the shop in the name of the Applicant. 6. Since it is her case that the shop came to be transferred in lieu of the financial help of only Rs.1,20,000 /- rendered by her, she was called upon to show the consideration paid by her to Ramchandra D. Salvi. She has produced her bank pass book of Bank Account No.40996345- 7 in Indian Bank, 3 Dadar branch. She has shown four entries of Rs.2,50,000/- , Rs.2,50,000 /- , Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- dated 24.02.2006, 27.02.2006, 27.03.2006 and 10.04.2006 which she claims are for the consideration paid for the transfer. She has also produced certificates of her Bankers that those cheques issued by her have been credited to the account of one Ramchandra D. Salvi. 7. This evidence run contrary to her case of transfer on account of financial help of Rs.1,20,000 /- . Interestingly on the date of the payment of the first installment itself she has sought transfer of the premises from the BMC. That was the date of her unregistered agreement also. She has paid further three installments later, two of those installments are paid after the transfer is affected. This is truly a unique transaction. The tenant of the BMC, Ramchandra D. Salvi has transferred the premises/shop to the Defendant's wife, the Applicant herein and thereafter received three installments for the transfer as consideration. 8. The bank account of the Applicant shows several entries of thousands of rupees immediately prior to the transfer affected by her for each of the installments. There are several transfers by cash and by transfer entries. The transfer entries denote two accounts in the same Bank. 4 After the four transfers, the bank balance of the Applicant has dwindled to a poultry amount of Rs.1,245.88 . 9. The Applicant was directed to show how her earnings and her expenses for the acquisition of this premises/shop were reflected in her taxation returns. She has produced her income tax statements for the Income tax statement filed on 19 th July, 2007 and on 19 th April, 2006. the balance sheet as on 31 st March, 2006 shows her shop premises valued at Rs.7,16,496 /- . The earlier returns are not produced. 10. The Applicant has filed a further affidavit to show that she had filed income tax returns from 1998- 2008. She has shown various amounts as her income in various years. Those income tax returns are not produced. It is her case that those incomes show that her income was sufficient to purchase the said shop. 11. The case in support of her Chamber Summons is not of a bonafide purchaser of the shop. It shows a case of exchange for the financial help rendered earlier. The applicant has not shown when and how the financial help of Rs.1,20,000 /- was rendered. The case of purchase sought to be now made out is not seen to be bonafide, in view of the various credit entries immediately prior to the payments of 5 cheques by the Applicant. 12. The fact that the Applicant has applied to the BMC on 24 th February, 2006, the date of the unregistered agreement annexed as Exhibit- C to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons and the fact that the BMC has transferred the premises in her name within barely one week, on 1st March, 2006 shows the transaction with the BMC also executed post- haste. 13. The Applicant has sought to show how her husband was not served with the writ of summons. It is not for this Court to consider in this Application the aspect relating to the service of the writ of summons to the Defendant. 14. The Applicant's case that she is carrying on her own separate business from the shop premises in paragraph No.4 of her affidavit is also not substantiated. 15. The Applicant has not shown the genuine bonafide case of ownership of her shop attached in execution of the decree passed against the Applicant's husband. Hence, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. 6 (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)