1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2203 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1265 OF 2007 Smt.Radha K. Patil & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Smt.Ramabai G. Dharavikar & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Yatin Shah for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Usha Gaddakar i/b M/s.Divya Shah Associates for Defendant No.3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This is a suit for partition. Defendant No.2 is the son of Defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.2 is the son of the deceased daughter of Defendant No.1. The deceased daughter, it is stated, has not been traceable for over seven years. Defendant No.3 who is a stranger to the family, alleges to have purchased the suit property admeasuring about 140 sq. mtrs. from Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The entire property is occupied by various tenants. 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their advocates remained absent yesterday. They are absent today. The property belonged to the husband of Defendant No.1, who expired in the year 1966. 3. The Plaintiffs did nothing in the matter to have the property transferred to their names for over forty years. The property continued in the name of the deceased. However on 28.1.2006, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 made 2 an application to the City Survey Officer, Mulund for transferring the property in their name. In February, 2008, their names were transferred in the property card in respect of the said property. Soon thereafter Defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed a conveyance dated 27.3.2006 in favour of Defendant No.3. 4. The question is whether Defendant No.3 is a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice. I do not for a moment suggest that the evidence presently on record suggests any mala-fides on the part of Defendant No.3. This would have to await trial. However, the evidence suggests that Defendant No.3 ought to have made further enquiries to perfect his title. For instance, in the application before the City Survey Officer, Defendant No.1 stated that Plaintiff No.1 had relinquished her rights in the property. Defendant No.3 could and ought to have made enquiries with the Plaintiffs before executing the said agreement. Defendant No.3 did issue a public notice but that by itself would not be sufficient. 5. However, considering the lapses on the part of the Plaintiffs for over last forty years, I am not inclined to appoint a Court Receiver. 6. 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 Defendants shall not sell, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right, title and/or interest, in, to, upon or in respect of the suit property except with the leave of the Court. However, Defendant No.3 shall be entitled to accept surrender of the tenancies and shall also be permitted to enter into leave and licence agreements under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for a period not exceeding five years at a time.