- 1 - 29.nms.2627.11 s.699.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2627 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 699 OF 2011 Sitaram Anand Shetty & Anr. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Janet Vaz & Ors. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Atul G. Damle i/b Ashish J. Dubey for the Plaintiff. Mr.Ashok A. Walwaikar for the Defendant No.1. Mr.Dipesh U. Siroya for the Defendant Nos.3, 3a, 3b and 3c. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. Not on board. By consent taken on board and heard finally. 1 Defendant Nos. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are the trustees of defendant no. 3. Defendant nos.3, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) do not dispute the plaintiffs’ right in respect of the properties in any manner whatsoever. Defendant No.3, and defendant nos.3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) (hereinafter for convenience referred to as defendant no.3) confirm the validity of the sale of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 also confirms that the entire consideration was paid. Defendant No.3 further confirms that the trustees deny having - 2 - 29.nms.2627.11 s.699.11 entered into any agreement of any nature whatsoever with defendant no.1 after the previous permission under section 36 dated 10th June 2005 having lapsed. 2 Defendant no.3 also states that neither they nor the officers of the trust having put defendant no.1 in possession. They states that no officer of the trust had authority of any nature to put defendant no.1 in possession. In fact, he states that the plaintiff was put in possession of the premises. 3 In the circumstances, it is contended on behalf of defendant no.3 that there is no cause of action against them and the suit as against them ought to be dismissed. 4 Mr.Damle, on the other hand, submits that in view of the allegations made by defendant no.1 regarding the Manager of the trust having put her in possession, defendant no.3, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are if not necessary, at least proper parties. 5 The submission made on behalf of defendant no.3 is well founded. It would be unfair to put a trust to expenses when they are not disputing the plaintiffs’ claim. The suit is not filed by defendant no.1. - 3 - 29.nms.2627.11 s.699.11 6 In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The suit as against defendant nos.3, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) is dismissed. All parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary / Associate of this Court. -