*1* nms.2210.09.s.1200.09.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2210 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1200 OF 2009 Vidya Vinayak Huprikar. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Vishwas Vasant Gadre, since deceased through L.Rs. Chhaya alias Mamta Vishwas Gadre and others. ..Defendants .......... Mr.N.R.Gandhi, for the Plaintif. Mr.Parag Dubey, for the Defendant Nos.1A to 1C. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard both sides. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for declaration that in the estate of deceased father she has 1/5 th share. Vasant Anant Gadre is the deceased. He expired on 05.05.1989 leaving behind his widow-Indirabai, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 4. The deceased was owner of the immovable property namely flat at Girgaon which is the real bone of contention. It is stated that the Plaintiff and her husband started residing with the deceased and continued to occupy the flat even after the deceased permanently left for Pune in the year 1972. The mother Indirabai expired on 15.11.1996. It is stated that the Plaintiff left and started residing at Andheri leaving the flat in care of the Defendant No.1. Even the Defendant No.1 has died during the pendency of suit. The original Defendant No.1 and the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are brother and sister of the Plaintiff. *2* nms.2210.09.s.1200.09.sxw 2 It is contended that valuable flat will be usurped by the heirs and legal representatives of the Defendant No.1 and the order of status- quo which has been passed by this Court on 22.07.2009 must be continued till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 3 In the affidavit in reply that is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the Defendant No.1, it is contended that the suit claim is hopelessly belated and barred by latches. Vasant Gadre died in the year 1989 and thereafter, it is mother Indirabai who was exclusive and only heir who could be said to be entitled to the estate. She became absolute owner and she has left a Will in the year 1990 where-under the flat has been bequeathed to the original Defendant No.1. In these circumstances, in 2002 and even thereafter, the Plaintiff has not taken any steps. She has now started harassing the Defendants only on account of the property becoming valuable. For all these reasons, this motion be dismissed. 4 Having perused the motion and reply, so also, the allegations in the plaint, I am of the opinion that until this Court decides the controversy as to whether the deceased Vasant’s estate was exclusively inherited by his widow-Indirabai or whether all the parties have any share in the suit property, so also, what is effect of the Will of Indirabai and the rights of parties in the estate of deceased Vasant; it would not be proper to permit the Defendants to alienate the suit property more particularly described in Exhibit-C to the plaint. The subject matter of this litigation, therefore, needs to be preserved and protected. There has been an order of status-quo from 22.07.2009 but on account of death of the Defendant No.1, the request is made to continue the same during the pendency of suit. Once the principal issues between the parties having been highlighted, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out to the extent of grant of interim injunction. Some of the parties are senior *3* nms.2210.09.s.1200.09.sxw citizens and during their lifetime it would be desirable to have the dispute adjudicated. The balance of convenience is also in their favour and they will suffer loss if the interim injunction is not granted. 5 In these circumstances, this Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Bearing in mind the age of parties, the hearing of suit is expedited. Written Statement to be filed within four weeks from today. List the suit for framing the issues in the week commencing 07 th February, 2011. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)