spb/- 1 nms3092-07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3092 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3429 OF 2006 M/s. Kalpataru Homes Ltd., ... Plaintiffs. . V/s. Mr. Robert Mathew Pareira & Ors. ... Defendants. ----- Mr. V. Dhond a/with Ms. Yasmin Bhansali for the Plaintiffs. Ms. Kanchan Gupta a/with Ms. Najma Shaikh i/by Vigil Juris for Defendant No.6. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The suit property belongs to defendant nos.1 to 5 or some of them. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had 2/3rd share in the suit property. He claims to have purchased their 2/3rd share in the suit property. According to the defendant nos. 3 to 5, the defendants 1 and 2 had only 1/4th share in the suit property, the remaining 3/4th share belongs to them and the defendant no.6 claims to have purchased 3/4th share in the suit property. spb/- 2 nms3092-07.sxw 3 The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separation of their 2/3rd share. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the share of defendant nos. 1 and 2, which is purchased by the plaintiff is only 1/4th share still the plaintiff would become co-owner of the property. In the circumstances, the plaintiff claims that the defendants would not be entitled to carry out development of the suit property to the exclusion of and without consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has, therefore, taken out this Motion for injunction, restraining the defendants from carrying out any construction on the suit property and for appointment of a Receiver. 4 So far as prayer for injunction is concerned, in my view defendants should be restrained from carrying out development as even according to them, the plaintiff is a co-owner of the suit property though his share, according to them is only 1/4th. The defendants cannot carry out any development of the property without the consent of the plaintiff and to his exclusion. Therefore, the injunction can be granted. 5 So for as prayer for appointment of Receiver is concerned, in my view, no ground for appointment of Receiver is made out. If the construction is prevented, in my view, that would protect the interest of spb/- 3 nms3092-07.sxw the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no present right for dispossessing the defendants who claims to be in possession or joint possession of the suit property. 6 For these reasons, Motion is partly allowed. The defendants are restrained from carrying out any construction on the suit property till disposal of the suit. Prayer for appointment of Receiver is, however, rejected. 7 Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]