1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4260 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3046 OF 2007 K. Rajeevendas Rai & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s. K. Satyaranjandas Rai ....Defendant Mr.G.S. Bhat for the Plaintiffs. Mr.G.V. Aiman for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for administration of the estate of the deceased father of the parties. The Plaintiffs and the sole Defendant are brothers and sisters. 2. The deceased father of the parties expired in 1975. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant along with their mother filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court being S.C. Suit No.2223 of 1976 against certain third parties for possession. The said suit was decreed on 6.3.1985. Possession was directed to be handed over to all the parties to this suit. The mother of the parties to the suit expired on 23.2.2005. Prior thereto, the licence for running a restaurant was transferred to the name of the deceased mother. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant thereafter without their knowledge or consent, had the licence transferred 2 to his name. 3. In view of the above facts, the Plaintiffs are entitled to protection of their rights in respect of the estate of the deceased father. The only question is the nature of the interlocutory reliefs that ought to be granted in the present case. 4. Admittedly, the business was being carried on by the Defendant from 1985 till 1999 along with the deceased mother. The Defendant and the deceased mother constituted a partnership firm between themselves through which the business was being carried on. After the year 1999, the business in the said premises has been carried on by a third party on a conducting basis. 5. According to the Plaintiffs, their share of the properties/compensation was paid to them during the life time of their mother. The Defendant denied the same. There is no evidence which establishes the Plaintiffs’ contentions. The same must therefore await the trial. 6. The Defendant has also relied upon a Will of the deceased mother who has bequeathed her interest solely to the Defendant who claims to have looked after her during her life time. 7. The business is presently being carried on on a conducting basis by a third party who has not been impleaded in this suit. The compensation being paid by the third party is Rs.18,000/- per month. I do not intend at this stage directing the Defendant to deposit the compensation in this Court. If the Plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the suit, they would be entitled to the adjustment in respect of the amounts of 3 compensation appropriated by the Defendant. 8. With the above clarification, the Notice of Motion is disposed of in the following manner :- i). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant shall not further encumber or create any further right, title and/or interest in favour of any party including the present conductor in respect of the suit premises and the business carried on therefrom without the leave of the Court. The Defendant shall not part with possession of the said premises in favour of any party. Nor shall he surrender the tenancy. ii). The draft of any proposed conducting agreement in future shall be forwarded to the Plaintiffs’ advocates at least two weeks before finalizing the same. Liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply in that event. It is clarified that the Defendant shall be entitled to appropriate the compensation/royalty even in respect of the future conducting or leave and licence agreement but the amounts shall be subject to adjustment at the final hearing of the suit. 9. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.