1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2691 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 623 OF 2003 Smt. Geeta widow of Rohit Raghavji Vira .. Plaintiff V/s. Raghavji Umershi Shah alias Vira & Ors. .. Defendants and UCO Bank India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhay Patki i/by Mr. Satish Rasal for the Plaintiff Mr. N. Engineer i/by M/s. P. Mehta & Mithi & Co. for Defendant Nos.1 to 6, Mr. S. Salian for Respondent No.2 SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE: 10th JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- . This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff for certain directions in respect of the sale of one of the properties claimed by the plaintiff as H.U.F. property. The tenancy rights of this property have been transferred for consideration. The plaintiff essentially claims to deposit of an amount in UCO Bank, which according to the plaintiff, is the amount received upon transfer of tenancy. The plaintiff has also claimed other reliefs for restoration of its possession and appointment of Court Receiver. There is no relief claimed in this notice of motion 2 against the transferee of the tenancy rights, Respondent No.2. 2. There have been various notices of motion in the suit and various orders passed by this Court. In an earlier notice of motion of the plaintiff disposed of by an order dated 15th September, 2005 of Justice S.U. Kamdar, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 were restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of Shop No. 5 and 6 at Naukar, Building, Malad (W). This order came to be passed upon the statement made by the defendant' s counsel. They were also directed to file accounts in respect of the business which was carried on in the premises which is transferred to Respondent No.2., for which reliefs are now claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was allowed to remain in possession of the residential flat and was provided maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. There is a distinct difference in approach with regard to Shop No.5 and 6 on the one hand and the tenancy rights of those shops which have now been transferred, on the other. The defendants were not prevented from transferring this shop in the earlier notice of motion. 3. The plaintiff claims her rights essentially under Section 3 of the Hindu Women' s Right to Property Act. The plaintiff is the widow of the son of defendant No.1. The son of defendant No.1, the plaintiff's husband, was a co-parcener of the H.U.F. Upon the death of her husband, the plaintiff would be entitled to the share, which her husband had in the property, until she claimed partition of those properties. This would form her share in the H.U.F. property. 3 Needless to say, that she would not be entitled to claim any share in any self-acquired property of any co-parcener. 4. The plaintiff claims under a family settlement, which was negotiated between the co-parceners but which did not come to be executed prior to the death of her husband. The plaintiff has enumerated the properties of the family in two parts. The particulars shown in part 'B' were negotiated to be given to her husband and his family. Those are claimed by her in the suit. The properties for which, reliefs are claimed in this notice of notion as shown in part 'A'. These properties did not come to the share of plaintiff' s husband under the said family settlement. The plaintiff cannot claim any reliefs with regard to the consideration received for the transfer of tenancy rights for the shops in question. 5. It is interesting to note that shop No.5 and 6 in Naukar Building at Malad (W) are shown in part 'B' , which is one of the properties that would have been allotted that plaintiff's husband. The defendants appear to have considered that fact. Hence, in the prior notice of motion, the defendants made a statement that they shall not transfer, alienate or create any third party rights in respect of shops No.5 and 6. An order of injunction was passed accordingly for Shops No. 5 and 6. 6. The plaintiff's rights, if any, with regard to the shops in question are entirely different. Those rights are not shown. No relief in this notice of motion can be granted to the plaintiff. 4 7. It may, however, be stated that the plaintiff would certainly be entitled to some of the properties of the H.U.F.. Which are those properties, which have to be answered in this suit. The claim of the plaintiff may be as per the family settlement, or a share on partition of the entire of the H.U.F. properties of the family. That share shall be determined in the suit. 8. The plaintiff does not press prayer (g). No documents with regard thereto are produced. At present, prayer (g) cannot be granted. The plaintiff may take out such proceeding as she is adviced as regard that prayer. 9. The defendants as well as the respondents are served the writ of summons. The defendant shall file their written statement within 8 weeks. Parties to complete inspection. Suit adjourned to 23rd August, 2008 for framing issues. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J. )