1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4052 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3006 OF 2007 Anna Isabella Rana alias Nancy Rana ...Plaintiff V/s. Anthony George D’Souza & Ors. ...Defendants. --- Mr. Chirag Shah i/b J.J. Shah, for the Plaintiff. Mr. M.J. Jamdar, for Defendant nos.1 and 2. --- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. :- 1. There is little doubt that the second schedule of the agreement dated 28.10.1998 and the conveyance executed pursuant thereto contained an incorrect description of the properties sought to be sold by the plaintiff to defendant nos.1 and 2. It appears clear that all that was sold by the plaintiff to defendant nos.1 and 2 was 980 sq.ft. carpet area of the ground floor structure alone. In other words nothing other than the structure was sold by the plaintiff to defendant nos.1 and 2. For instance the land under the structure was 2 not sold. Defendant nos.1 and 2 can claim no rights in respect thereof. 2. Pursuant to application made by defendant nos.1 and 2 dated 11.1.2004 [Exh.`C’ to the plaint] to the B.M.C. defendant no.3 and/or the City Survey Officer/defendant no.4 have changed the property/assessment card by showing defendant nos.1 and 2 as owners of the entire property i.e. the entire structure as well as land surrounding it. This is incorrect. 3. Mr.Jamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 2 submits that the entry in the property card is incorrect. He further admits that defendant nos.1 and 2 by their application dated 11.1.2004 applied for their names to be shown only in respect of the ground floor structure and that the only request was to add defendant nos.1 and 2 in the record and not to delete the names of the plaintiff. He further submits that defendant nos.3 and 4 wrongly made the aforesaid change. 4. The Notice of Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer (a). It is, however, clarified that there is no order restraining the plaintiff from dealing with the entire property in any manner whatsoever. This obviously is subject to the rights, if any, of defendant nos.1 and 2. 3