1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3110 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2288 OF 2007 Smt. Smita Kashinath Patil & Anr. ....Plaintiffs Vs. Smt. Garibai Pandurang Patil. ....Defendant Mr.Tejas Vora with Ms.Savita Sawalkar i/b M/s.Tamhane & Co., for the Plaintiffs. Mr.R.P. Joshi with Mr.S.S. Gawde, for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for the administration of the estate of the deceased husband of Plaintiff No.1. According to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of Plaintiff no.1 through an earlier marriage. The first husband of Plaintiff No.1 is alive. However, according to Plaintiff No.1 she had obtained a divorce from her first husband before marrying the deceased. It is further contended that Plaintiff No.2 was adopted by Plaintiff No.1 and her 2nd husband i.e. the deceased. 2. The Defendant is the mother of the said deceased. According to the Defendant the marriage between Plaintiff No.1 and the deceased is void as, on the date of the marriage, the said deceased was married to one Nanibai through whom the deceased had four children. The said Nanibai and her children are 2 alive. Their names have been disclosed in the written statement. Despite this they have not been brought on record. 3. In this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs seeks the appointment of the Court Receiver and an injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in Exhibit-M to the plaint. 4. The averments in the plaint do indicate that the Plaintiffs claim a right in respect of the properties mentioned in Exhibit-M on the basis that they constitute a part of the estate of the deceased. However, the averments in the plaint as well as the description of the properties in Exhibit-M are not sufficient to describe at least some of the properties especially those at Serial Nos.3 and 4 thereof. The Plaintiffs are at liberty to takeout a fresh application in the event of the amendment being permitted for furnishing better particulars in this regard. 5. The Defendant states that she is not, at least at present, in control or possession of any of the properties or the documents relating to the bank accounts and other investments. A statement is made on behalf of the Defendant that she will not deal with the properties mentioned in Exhibit-M without the leave of this Court and after notice to the Plaintiff’s advocate. The statement is accepted. 6. As far as item No.1 of Exhibit-M is concerned viz. a flat being flat No.A-65, Sameer Apartment, Andheri (West), the son of the deceased from his first wife is in possession thereof. Indeed the Plaintiffs appear to have been aware of the same in as much as complaints have been made to the Police Station against him for wrongful possession of the said flat. The Plaintiffs ought 3 to implead him as in his absence, it would not be appropriate to pass interim orders in this suit which would affect him. The Defendant, as stated above, has in any event agreed not to deal even with this flat without the leave of the Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant stated that it was through inadvertence that a statement was made on behalf of the Defendant as recorded in the order dated 3.9.2007 that she is in possession of the property at item No.3 of Exhibit-M. 7. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Plaintiffs as aforesaid.