1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.14 of 2008 In T. Suit No.36 of 2005 In Petition No.36 of 2005 Aloo Hormusji Umrigar @ Aloo H. Umrigar @ Aloo Umrigar @ A.H. Umrigar @ A.H.U. ... Deceased Mr.Yazdi Darab Chichgur & anr. .. .. Plaintiffs/(Orig.Petitioners) v/s. Jeroo Rustom Engineer & anr. .. .. Defendants/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (Original Caveators) WITH Notice of Motion No.16 of 2008 In T. Suit No.34 of 2005 In Petition No.141 of 2005 Djamki Darab Chichgur. .. .. Petitioner/Plff. V/s. 1.Mrs.Jerro Rustom Engineer & anr. .. Defendants/Res. Nos.1 & 2. Darius Dhanju Chichgur .. Respondent No.3 The Court Receiver, High 2 Court, Bombay. .. .. Respondent No.4 Mr.Arif Bookwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir, Mr.S.H. Merchant, Ms.Chaitra Rao & Ms.Urvashi Tapas i/by M & M Legal Venture for plaintiffs/petitioners. Mr.G.S.Bhat for respondent No.3. Ms.S.V. Thakkar for applicants/deft.No.1. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 6th June, 2008 P.C. : 1.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have taken out the above Notices of Motion for being appointed Administrators of the estate of their two deceased sisters under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the flat in which the deceased lived, the share certificates of the deceased, the Fixed Deposit Receipts (“FDRs”), Bank Deposits and the deposits of body corporate. They also applied for appointment of Court Receiver. 2.The Court Receiver has been appointed by consent of the parties as per the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by Justice S.U. Kamdar (as he then was) in respect of the flat in which the deceased lived. The Court Receiver was directed to make inventory of the flat and the inventory of the share 3 certificates, which is done. The Court Receiver' s Report has been submitted in that regard. The Court Receiver continues to be the Receiver in respect of the suit property. Respondent No.3 who is in possession has been appointed the agents of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty of the suit premises and without putting the board of the Court Receiver on the premises. In other Notices of Motions disposed of earlier today, that order has been partly modified since the plaintiffs in possession were seen to have carried out certain additions and alterations in the flat of the deceased in which they were residing. 3.It will have to be seen whether the Administrator can be appointed in respect of the estate for which the Court Receiver has already been appointed. It must be appreciated that the purpose and intent of the appointment of the Administrator is necessarily the same. It is to secure the estate of the deceased pending the litigation between the claimants. The estate is substantially secured with regard to the flat as stated above. 4.The Court Receiver has made an inventory of the share certificates. Hence, the estate of the deceased to that extent 4 is known. Mr.Bookwala on behalf of the plaintiffs states that the Court Receiver may be directed to have these shares dematted in their name so that it will lend further security to that part of the estate. 5.The case for appointment of the Administrator is made out on the ground of movables in the flat which are furniture, including certain antiques are dumped in the flat, not cared for and have deteriorated. Exhibit-B in the Affidavit-in- support of the Notice of Motion is a list of such furniture. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have produced the photographs of certain rooms in the suit flat showing certain articles of furniture and antique pieces of furniture. They are not seen to be neglected. They are not seen to have deteriorated. In fact, they are kept in a decent manner. Mr.Bookwala on behalf of the plaintiffs offers to hand over the articles of furniture to defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Advocate on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 insists that these articles be kept in one of the three bedrooms in the suit flat. Dumping them in one room would, in fact, cause their deterioration which day to day usage of the articles, in fact, would not. 6.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have shown two articles of furniture 5 out of the list of furniture made by the Receiver whilst taking the inventory of the suit premises which are shown to be not in good condition. 7.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have relied upon certain Fixed Deposit Receipts (“FDRs”) mentioned in Exhibits B and B-1 of the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. It is stated that these are the FDRs which were suppressed by the plaintiffs in the Petitions. They are, therefore, shown by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Several of these FDRs are encashed and deposited in the joint account of defendant No.1 and her daughter in Standard Chartered Bank, Breach Candy Branch, Mumbai. The other FDRs are not yet encashed but listed. They form part of the estate of the deceased. 8.There is no further list shown of any FDRs of the deceased in any Bank by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and no order can be passed thereon. 9.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to show that the Executors and Administrators have wasted the property or that even after the appointment of the Court Receiver the estate of the deceased is not secured. No case for appointment of the 6 Administrator is made out. 10.There shall be no order on the Notices of Motion. No order as to costs. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]