: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.33 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.68 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.40 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.183 OF 2007 Sandha Sital Sangtani .. Petitioner / Plaintiff V/s. Sharada Sital Sangtani & Ors. .. Defendants / Caveators ..... Mr. Mohan Bir Singh for for the plaintiff in support of NM 68/08 Mr. M.K. Mudnaney for the defendant in support of NM 33/08 ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. These notices of motion were placed today for hearing and final disposal. 2. These notices of motion have been placed along with the testamentary suit. The parties are related to each other. In issue between them are two flats which are situate at Worli, Mumbai. Presently the flats are being occupied by defendants and they state that they have not : 2 : created any third party rights or interest of any nature in the same. 3. The contentions of Mr. Singh appearing for the plaintiff is that ultimately the plaintiff is interested in her share in the estate of the deceased. That was agreed to be given to her in the form of a portion / percentage of the sale price of the two flats. However, these flats could not be sold till date. Mr. Singh after taking instructions from the son of the plaintiffs who is present in the Court states that through her son the plaintiff has conveyed to Mr. Singh that even at this stage she is ready and willing to take the proportionate share and she has no objection, if the flats are sold. 4. After taking instructions from the defendants who are also present in the Court Mr. Mudnaney states that defendants have no objection if the flats are sold and they are ready and willing to handover the compensation and share of the plaintiff so also confer title on the purchaser. 5. Further it is stated and now agreed by both sides that flat being occupied by school going children, the sale cannot be immediately concluded. Both agree that the sale be concluded by 30th June, 2010. So far as modalities for the sale are concerned, it is stated by Mr. Mudnaney on : 3 : instructions that defendants have published a Notice in the news paper inviting offers for sale of these flats and they are awaiting response. Some time may be given to take a decision with regard to these offers which may be received in pursuance to the notice. 6. Mr. Singh appearing for the petitioner plaintiff before me contends that even the plaintiff would forward any offers received, but that should be considered by the defendants. In any event, a expeditious decision should be taken to sell the two flats so that the share of the plaintiff can be paid. 7. It is agreed by both sides that an attempt be made to dispose off these properties through the parties themselves till 30th November, 2009 and if by that date, the sale could not be concluded, then, a proper agency / Court Receiver should be appointed to conduct the Sale on behalf of the parties. In the light of these statements made on instructions which are all accepted for time being, no reliefs are pressed in terms of the notice of motion and they are disposed off. Liberty, however, is reserved to parties to apply in case the sale could not be concluded by 30th November, 2009. Needless to state that dismissal of these motions with the aforementioned agreed proposals and statements would not preclude parties from applying for such reliefs as are permissible in law including pressing : 4 : the present prayers in the instant motions. All contentions of both parties in that behalf are kept open. It is not necessary to clarify that if the plaintiffs forward any proposals and offers they shall be duly considered by the defendants and they must co-operate fully in that behalf. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)