1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2955 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2162 OF 2009 Smt.Shamsher Kaur Ghumman nee Gill .. Plaintiff Versus Ashok Ramchand Khemlani and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.S.V.Rajadyax i/b.R.R.Arolkar for plaintiff Mr.Jaideep Mitra i/b. Khatri Legal Venture for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : November 7, 2009. P.C.: 1] Heard learned Counsel for parties. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming to be Aunt of deceased Jyoti Arjun Baxi, for a declaration that she is the heir and entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. The estate includes a flat at Versova, Mumbai, more particularly described in the plaint. The deceased came to Mumbai to make a career in films. Unfortunately for her, she fell in bad company and, thereafter, was addicted to liquor and smoking. She expired sometime in the year 2005. Her parents are no more but it is claimed by the plaintiff that she is her Aunt i.e. on the basis that the deceased was the daughter of Arjun Baxi Gill who is brother of plaintiff. Family tree has been set out so also the details of the relations. 2 2] As far as the defendant is concerned, he is contesting this entire claim. The basis of the contest is that he is issued with Letters of Administration by this Court in Testamentary Petition No.336 of 2007. He states that he has married the deceased. However, considering the lifestyle of the deceased, there were disputes and differences. The deceased walked out of the said marriage. Although, on affidavit the first defendant states that subsequently he had married another lady and that marriage was dissolved by the Family Court, surprisingly, his status is mentioned as that of a bachelor. It is sought to be explained by stating that this is sheer inadvertence. He claims to have married the deceased at a ceremony and details of the same are set out including the name of the Priest who solemnised the marriage. 3] There were serious disputes raised with regard to validity of the marriage. In fact the plaintiff had filed an application for revocation of the grant in favour of defendants considering the contest and the matter involving an issue of title to the property, so also status of parties, the Court granted liberty to plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceedings. 4] Although, it is contended by the defendants that this Court cannot go into the validity of the marriage inasmuch as there is an appropriate forum available in law, yet, if the plaint is perused as a whole, together with the prayers, it is clear that the parties are claiming entitlement as heirs of the deceased. Both claim to be the heir and successors to the estate of the deceased. Unfortunately, when the deceased expired, she 3 was alone and later on considering the dispute, the police authorities seized the property/flat. It is still in possession of police authorities. 5] In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the ad-interim order which is granted by this Court sub-serves the ends of justice. The motion is, therefore, made absolute in terms of ad-interim order. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides on the merits of controversy. It is also made clear that the motion is made absolute in terms of ad-interim order made on 20th May 2009 granted in the present motion and the same shall continue till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)