1 mss NMS1905 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1905 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 1941 OF 2009 BHARAT DHONDU YADAV & ANR. .. PLAINTIFFS Vs. SIROVA A & M CONSTRUCTION & ANR... DEFENDANTS Ms. Priti S. Shah for the plaintiffs Mr. A. P. Jadhav for D-1 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 5/12/2011 P.C. The report of the registry shows that the services on both defendants is complete. The defendant no. 1 has appeared through an advocate and the said advocate has filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the relief claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 is absent though duly served. 2. The allegation is that the plaintiffs have been deprived, of the benefits or the rights that are conferred in their mother Rukmini, by defendant Nos. 1 2 mss NMS1905 and 2. It is stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is the son and plaintiff No. 2 is married daughter of Rukmini Yadav. The defendant No. 2 is another son of Rukmini Dhondu Yadav and, therefore, the brother of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the plaintiff No. 1 along with the deceased father Dhondu Bhau Yadav, deceased mother Rukmini Dhondu Yadav and defendant No. 2 were jointly residing in a flat as tenants. 3. The plaintiffs state that plaintiff No. 2 got married and she is residing separately. The 1st defendant is now claiming to have acquired the rights of ownership in the suit property. He also claims that defendant No. 2 has surrendered the right, title and interest in the tenanted premises in favour of the defendant No. 1 and reliance is placed upon a document in that behalf. 4. The suit is filed questioning this surrender and terming it as collusive and fraudulent act on the part of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1. It is stated in the plaint that once there is a claim that the plaintiff No. 1 was residing with the deceased Rukmini at the time of her death and the tenancy is, therefore, protected in terms of the statutory provisions, then, the purported surrender by defendant No. 2 cannot bind the plaintiffs. It would have to be a joint surrender or else it is not valid in law. 5. Such being the nature of the controversy and the plaintiffs having made out a prima facie case, so also the balance of convenience being in 3 mss NMS1905 their favour, that, I am of the opinion that irreparable harm, loss and injury will be caused to them, if the 1st defendant purports to alienate, encumber and transfer the suit properety further. 6. It is in these circumstances that until this notice of motion is heard and disposed of that there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The defendant No. 1 waives service. 7. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of the order. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)