1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS 18 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2009 Pradeep Kishindas Chhabria .......Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others .......Respondent. Mr. R.M. Nakhwa with T.C. Deshpande i/b Vasant Dhawan adv. for the Petitioner Ms. G.S. Joglekar for Respondent no.1. Ms. Nishtha Parekh with Ms. Nikita Ajwani i/b. Rajani Asso. For respondent no.4. Mr. Yashodhan Divekar for applicant in C.S. 18/2010.. CORAM: J.N. PATEL Acting .C.J. AND B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 01st February, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons for joining the applicant as respondent no.5 in the present petition. 2. The applicant submits that he is entitled to 1/4th share in the property which is subject matter of this suit. 3. Taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit 2 in support of the Chamber Summons, we are inclined to make the Chamber Summons absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The petitioner be impleaded as respondent no.5 during the course of the day. (Acting C.J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2009 Pradeep Kishindas Chhabria .......Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others .......Respondent. Mr. R.M. Nakhwa with T.C. Deshpande i/b Vasant Dhawan adv. for the Petitioner Ms. G.S. Joglekar for Respondent no.1. Ms. Nishtha Parekh with Ms. Nikita Ajwani i/b. Rajani Asso. For respondent no.4. Mr. Yashodhan Divekar for applicant in C.S. 18/2010.. CORAM: J.N. PATEL Acting .C.J. AND B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 01st February, 2010. P.C.: 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bifurcate the property tax and issue separate bills in respect of the petitioner’s property. 4 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property described at Exh.A has been partitioned and by a Deed of partition dated 7-8-2003, the petitioner has been allotted 40% share and 60% share has been alloted to respondent no.4. It is submitted that however a composite tax bill has been issued and as such the petitioner cannot pay the tax for the property falling to his share. 6. The factum of partition is not disputed by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.4. However the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 opposed the petition on the ground that he has filed a suit claiming his 25% share in the suit property. He therefore submits that the petitioner is not entitled to 40% share of the property in question. 7. We find that the present petition is only restricted in so far as the liability of the payment of Corporation tax is concerned. We do not find it necessary to go into the dispute between the parties with respect to their entitlement in the property. However since the petitioner and the respondent no.4 have stated that they are willing to share the property taxes in the proportion of 40 to 60%, we find that the ends of justice would be met if the Corporation is directed to accept the tax from the petitioner and the respondent no.4 in the share of 40% and 60%. It is however made clear that the said payment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties and the parties shall be entitled to agitate their claim before the appropriate forum. 8. Petition therefore stands disposed of with aforesaid direction. 5 Needless to state that if the petitioner fails to make payment, the Corporation is at liberty to take action in accordance with the law for recovery of taxes. (Acting C.J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)