1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2715 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.2370 OF 2006 Deepak Laxmanrao Renuke Plaintiff versus Padmabai Laxmanrao Renuke and others Defendants Mr.V.R.Tripathi i/by V.R.Tripathi & Associates for plaintiff. Mr.P.D.Patil for defendant no.2. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 30th November 2010 PC : 1. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff inter alia for a declaration that he along with his mother-defendant no.1 are joint owners of the flat being Room No.A/6, Ground Floor, Nutan Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd; Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 and that he has a 50% undivided share therein. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has wrongly sold the suit premises to the defendant no.3. He has therefore taken out the above Notice of Motion seeking appointment of the Court Receiver of the suit flat and has also sought an injunction to restrain the defendant no.3 from selling, disposing off, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession, mortgaging and/or creating any lien or charge over the suit flat. 2. By an ad-interim order dated 30th August 2006, this Court granted injunction against the defendants in terms of prayer clause (a). Today none appear for defendant no.3 though Ms.Rajashree Malpute, Advocate had obtained an adjournment on 18th November 2010 on behalf of 2 defendant no.3. The learned advocate for the defendant no.2 society states that in the records of the society, the suit flat stands in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 till today and in view of the order passed by this Court on 30th August 2006, the society has not transferred the said flat in the name of the defendant no.3. 3. From the above facts it is prima facie established that the plaintiff has 50% right in the suit flat. The defendant no.1 could not have sold the suit flat to the defendant no.3 without the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant no.3 ought to have had knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff has 50% right in the suit flat as the same is clear from the share certificate pertaining to the suit flat. Since the learned advocate for the plaintiff has at this point of time not pressed for appointment of Court Receiver of the suit flat, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the ad-interim order dated 30th August 2006 passed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion stands confirmed. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)