1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3266 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2452 OF 2007 Smt.Neelam O. Jaiswal & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Mamila P. Yadav ....Defendant Mr.Mohan N. Dhamal for the Plaintiff. Mr.Indu Prakash i/b Mr.L.K. Tripathi for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for a declaration that Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the suit property and for a decree for possession thereof. 2. Plaintiff No.1 claims to have purchased the suit property which comprises of a room admeasuring 220 sq.ft. from Plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 confirms the same. The Defendant’s case however, is that the property belongs to a joint family comprising inter-alia of Plaintiff No.2 and himself. All the documents relating to the suit premises show Plaintiff No.2 as the owner thereof. There is nothing on record which indicates that the Defendant has any right, title and/or interest in respect of the said room. 3. The Defendant however, states that he is the nephew of Plaintiff No.2 and that Plaintiff No.2 had adopted him by a deed . Plaintiff No.2 however has denied the adoption and alleged that the document of 2 adoption was wrongfully obtained by the Defendant from him. 4. Even assuming that the adoption is valid, it would make no difference as far as the title is concerned for the Defendant as a son of Plaintiff No.2 would not have any right in respect of the suit property. 5. Faced with this,the Defendant submitted that in any event Plaintiff No.2 and he are the members of the same family ; that the Defendant contributed to the maintenance of the premises and all the household expenses over the years and that the suit premises was treated as that of a joint family. 6. The Plaintiffs’ rights in these circumstances required to be protected. Considering the order that I intend passing, it is not necessary to deal with various contentions regarding the manner in which the Defendant allegedly illegally took possession of the suit premises. In this Notice of Motion at least, possession has not been claimed by the Plaintiffs. 7. It is important to note however that the Defendant contends that he never obstructed Plaintiff No.2 from enjoying the suit premises jointly with himself. I see no purpose in appointing the Court Receiver as the costs of the Court Receiver would be too high for the Plaintiffs to bear in a matter of this nature. 8. The Defendant confirms that he is in occupation only of the ground floor portion of the structure. 9. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is disposed of by the following order :- (i). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant shall not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of 3 or create any third party right, title and/or interest, in, to, upon or in respect of the suit premises. (ii). The Defendant shall not obstruct the use of the suit premises by Plaintiff No.2 jointly with him and the members of his family. (iii). The Defendant shall restrict his use only to the ground floor of the suit structure. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff No.2 a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month on or before the 10th day of each month commencing from 10.1.2010.