1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.367 of 2010 IN Suit No.325 of 2009 WITH Notice of Motion No.1645 of 2009 IN Suit No.325 of 2009 Rajendrakumar Amarchand Jain .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed .. Defendant Plff. present in person Mr.M.S. Bhandari with Pranjali Bhandari for Plff. Mr.Santosh Adukia for Deft. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 7th May, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Plaintiff is one of the 9 coparceners of the suit properties which were initially used in common by the coparceners. It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that the properties of the family were room Nos.8, 11, 12, 14 and one attic. The Plaintiff by himself would not be entitled to more than one room. The other 8 coparceners have sold their undivided share to the 2 Defendant in this suit. The Plaintiff now claims the right of pre-emption to purchase his share at the same rate as it was sold in 2007 plus the escalation in prices. 2.If the Plaintiff cannot purchase the share as the price cannot be determined, the Plaintiff could sell his 1/9 th share also to the Defendant on the same terms that is upon the price mentioned as paid in 2007 plus escalation in prices. 3.Pending such settlement or determination of the Plaintiff s rights, the Plaintiff requires interim reliefs. At present, only the portion of the property to the extent of 1/9 th, which is left unsold, can be allowed to the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff is allowed possession of such share that he would actually be in exclusive possession. The Plaintiff would be entitled to less than a room as his 1/9 th share. The Plaintiff is now in possession of room Nos.8, 14 and attic. 4.From what is described as the suit property, this property in possession of the Plaintiff is far more than his 1/9 th share. 5.The Plaintiff claims that the bathroom for the co- owners was in room Nos.11 and 12. Room Nos.11 and 12 3 are sold. The Plaintiff claims that he has been relegated to the common bathroom and toilet. This transaction took place in 2007. The Plaintiff sued in 2009. The Plaintiff took out the first Notice of Motion in 2009. The Plaintiff could not apply for ad- interim reliefs for want of that prayer in that Notice of Motion. Thereafter the Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion in February 2010. 6.Pending determination of the Plaintiff s claim, he would be entitled only to 1/9 th share. The Plaintiff may continue in possession of room Nos.8 and 14 and the common use of the bathroom and toilet until his share is determined and either sold or brought over by him. 7.The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. 8.Notice of Motion No.1645 of 2009 is allowed to be withdrawn. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)