1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1901 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1595 OF 2008 Mrs. Urminda alias Gloria Jose Nunes& Ors. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Mrs. Candelina Nicolau Nunes & Anr. .. Defendants Mr. D. H. Mehta i/b D. M. Legal Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. G. K. Karkera for the Defendants. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 14th June, 2010. P.C. 1. The Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.2 are sisters. Defendant No.1 is their mother. 2. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that along with her husband she financed the purchase of the suit flat for her mother who was earlier living in a slum. The Plaintiff was married and settled in Germany for more than a decade before the suit flat was purchased. The suit flat was purchased on 16.04.1980. The Plaintiff has shown that for the purchase of the suit flat the remittance was made from Germany through Father Theo of Germany and father Cardozo of Mahim church, Mumbai. The remittance of Rs. 47, 500/- is shown to be made on 2nd June, 1978. 2 3. The Plaintiff has relied upon correspondence which intrinsically shows the suit flat financed by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s husband’s brother who was living in Mumbai had helped Defendant No.1 in the purchase of the flat. He has finalized the deal. 4. The flat came to be registered in the name of Defendant No.1. The stamp duty was also paid in her name as Plaintiff No.1 was resident of Germany. The Father Cardozo of Mahim Church, Mumbai kept Plaintiff No.1 and her husband informed of the transaction as it happened. 5. The Plaintiffs have relied upon and produced the letters written by the Father to the husband of Plaintiff No.1 as well as the letters written by Plaintiff No.2, the other sister of Plaintiff No.1, informing her of the transaction. The Father of Mahim Church further informed the husband of Plaintiff No.1 about the additional stamp duty which was to be paid upon amendment of the Stamp Act. Such correspondence intrinsically shows the purchase of the flat financed by Plaintiff No.1. 6. Plaintiff No.1 financed the flat essentially for her mother. Her mother lived in the flat for over two decades. Now Plaintiff No.1 desired the flat to be transferred to her name. The mother has instead gifted the flat to Plaintiff No. 2. 3 7. Defendant No.1, the mother, has not shown any part of the consideration paid by her. Her affidavit shows that the donation was received by her from Father Theo of Germany and such donation is also received by the younger brother of the husband of Plaintiff No.1. This aspect is not substantiated. 8. Pending the suit the flat is required to be protected. Court Receiver is appointed in respect of suit flat. The Court Receiver shall allow the Defendants to reside in the suit flat pending the suit. The Defendants shall pay all the taxes, outgoings and maintenance amounts in respect of the suit flat. The Defendants shall not dispose of, alienate, part with possession, transfer or create any third party right in the suit flat pending the suit. The Court Receiver shall act on a certified copy of this order. 9. The order of appointment of Court Receiver is stayed for 2 weeks. ( R. S. DALVI, J.)