1 (52)NMS.3588.2010-S.3165.2010.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3588 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3165 OF 2010 Indira Rajguru ...Plaintiff Vs. Balkrishna K. Rajguru & Ors. ...Defendants Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar a/w. Ms. Usha Gadagkar i/b. Divya Shah, Advocates for Plaintiff Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w. Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar, Advocates i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for Defendants CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. : 1. The suit is for administration of the estate of the deceased father of the Plaintiff. The Defendants are her siblings. The contest is only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.3. 2. The Plaintiff has shown various movable and immovable properties of their deceased father. Most of these are admittedly the properties of the father of the parties. The parties have shown certain status report. However a true position of the status specially of the movables is yet unknown. How that status has been arrived at is also not known. It would be for the Plaintiff to gather the information with regard to all the properties of deceased father in various bank accounts or fixed deposits. 2 (52)NMS.3588.2010-S.3165.2010.sxw 3. The suit is also for four immovable properties. The Plaintiff contends that under an unregistered power of attorney executed by the father in Porbandar in favour of Defendant No.3, Defendant No.3 has got the gift deed as well as the release deed executed in his name as the Doner as well as Donee and Releaser as well as Releasee respectively. The power of attorney is not registered. The power of attorney shows an intent to transfer. Based upon the power of attorney the transfer has been effected by a single executant, Defendant No.3. A case for evading the power of attorney as a voidable instrument made out by the Plaintiff is of undue influence and duress. 4. The Plaintiff claims that eight houses in Porbandar belonged to her father. No particulars of these properties are given. The Defendant No.3 claims that there was one house of their father in Porbander which has been transferred to his name under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code. When the transfer has been effected has not been shown. Counsel on behalf of Defendant No.3 could not state this fact to Court on the Court’s inquiry even upon taking instructions from the Advocate on record. Defendant No.3 claims that there are two plots of land in Porbandar which belonged to his aunt and which have been transferred by way of execution of gift deed by the aunt. No document with regard to these properties in Porbandar are also produced by the Defendant No.3. 5. The Plaintiff resides in the U.K. The Defendant No.3 also resides in the U.K. The deceased father resided in Porbandar. 3 (52)NMS.3588.2010-S.3165.2010.sxw 6. Being a simplicitor case of avoidance of contract relating to the movable properties on the ground of undue influence, a case for appointment of Court Receiver is not made out though a case for protection of properties by an order of injunction is made out. 7. Full particulars relating to the movable properties more particularly the bank accounts and the fixed deposit receipts is not obtained by the Plaintiff as the banks have not furnished all the material information to the Plaintiff. The bank accounts are admittedly in the name of the deceased father of the parties. The estate of the father would have to be administered by the Court. Certain large entries of transfer of amounts from the account of the father to the account of Defendant No.3 are shown. It would be for the Plaintiff to obtain all the material information. It would be for the banks to provide the material information asked for by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. Accounts of these properties is required to be taken in the suit. Directions for procurring all the material information can be passed in this Notice of Motion. 8. Hence the following order: 1. Defendant No.3 or his servants and agents shall not deal with, dispose off, part with possession, alienate, transfer or create any 3rd party rights in any of the immovable properties in this suit in Mumbai or in Porbandar, Gujarat pending the suit. 2. All the banks and financial institutions in which the deceased had any bank account or FDRs shall, upon a request by the 4 (52)NMS.3588.2010-S.3165.2010.sxw Plaintiff or her Advocates provide all the necessary information by documentary evidence of execution of cheques, withdrawal slips in respect of any of the entries in the bank accounts or withdrawal of amounts under the FDRs or by any letter or intimation by the deceased and for Defendant No.3 to the banks or financial institutions. 3. The Plaintiff shall enumerate the entire estate of the deceased in a columnar statement showing how and on which dates the accounts or FDRs have been dealt with by their father during his life time or by Defendant No.3 during or after the life time of the father along with all the documents supplied by the banks. 4. The above documents shall be provided by the bank manager duly certified by him/her under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act. 5. There shall be no other order on the Notice of Motion. No order as to costs. 6. The written statement is filed by Defendant Nos.3 and 4. 7. Suit to be on board of regular Court for framing issues on 24th November 2011. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)