1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No.661 of 2009 with APPEAL FROM oRDER nO. 548 OF 2009 IN Misc. Application (*Exhibit 74) in Civil Suit No.172 of 2007 Malvika Mukesh Agarwal ..Appellant vs. Vijay Chiranjilal Agarwal (Lala)and others ..Respondents Shri Nitin Muley with Shri Nivit Srivastava i/b Shri Nivit Srivastava for appellant. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 2nd June, 2009 (Vacation Judge) P.C. 1. By an order dated 26th May, 2009 the respondents were directed to file their reply and the appeal was adjourned till today. However, the respondents and their Advocates have remained absent. No reply as directed by this Court is filed by the respondents. 2 2. The suit is filed by the applicant/original plaintiff against the defendants for a declaration that the alleged will produced by the Defendant no.1 is null and void and for a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 have equal shares to the estate of their deceased father and mother who, according to the plaintiffs, have died intestate. 3. By the order in Appeal dated 27th April, 2009 the learned Trial Judge has, at the interim stage, allowed defendant no.1 to create a lease, sublease or licence in respect of the suit property belonging to the deceased parents of the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos.1 and 2 and to produce the documents of sub-lease or licence as the case may be in respect of the said property within two months from making the samei.e.after its execution with the third parties. The learned Judge has, therefore, given a blanket 3 permission to defendant no.1 to enter into the lease, sub-lease or licence agreements with third parties and put them in possession of the property of the deceased parents of the parties. The protection sought to be given to the plaintiff, namely, that defendant no.1 shall indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of her share in the profit, rent or compensation as may be determined by this Court at the final hearing of the suit and shall submit all accounts of rent periodically every six months will, in my view, not be of much assistance to the plaintiff because the entire burden of proving that the profit, rent or compensation received by defendant no.1 is not adequate would be on the plaintiff. 4. In matters like the one in hand an order which would protect all the siblings would be to appoint a Receiver of the property who would prepare the terms of lease 4 sub-lease or licence in respect of the vacant suit premises and give an option to the parties to bring the lessee/s or sublessee/s or licensee/s interested in occupying such premises and put such party in possession who would offer highest rent/compensation in respect of the same. 5. In view of the aforesaid, pending admission of the appeal, an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) of the civil application no.661 of 2009 is granted. 7. Appeal to come up for admission on 15th June, 2009. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)