1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2574 OF 2008 AND CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 572 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. 1235 OF 2001 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2 OF 2001 IN SUIT NO. 1143 OF 1986 Hiralal Ghanshamdas Kukreja & Ors. .. Appellants. Vs. Mohanlal Ghanshamdas Kukreja. .. Respondent. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. A. Joshi i/by M/s. L.J. Law for the appellants. Mr. P. Ganwani i/by Rajesh P. Chheda for the Respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. : 2 . This notice of motion is taken out by the appellants for permission to withdraw the amount of Rs. 72,88,888/- being 4/9th share of the sisters of Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in 16% share of their mother since deceased and to permit them to withdraw the amount of Rs. 18,22,222/- being the remaining 1/9th share in 16% share of the mother lying deposited with the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. The application for withdrawal is made pursuant to the following clause in the consent terms filed by the parties in the appeal proceedings. In case any of the parties or sisters makes a claim for “ this amount, the amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn after seeking appropriate orders from the court.” 2. Mr. Ganwani, the learned counsel for the respondent., opposing this application submits that it is necessary to ensure compliance with clause 17 (iv) of additional settled terms and conditions dated 25th April 2008 of the sale of property of Kukreja House . The “ ” clause states As the biddings shall be between Plaintiffs and “ Defendants, all the payments should be made by parties and no third party payment shall be accepted. Mr. Ganwani argues that after the ” sale he has addressed two letters to appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 calling upon them to disclose the source from where consideration for the 3 purchase of the property has come. According to him, there has been no response to the said letters. A plain reading of the said clause makes it clear that there is no obligation on the part of the purchaser to disclose the source of payment of consideration. The only restriction imposed under clause was that no third party payment shall be accepted. It is not the case of the respondent that any third party has purchased the property. 3. The second objection raised by the respondent is that the the gift deed by which the mother has gifted away her share in the property in favour of the appellants was referred to only in passing in the earlier proceedings and the particulars in respect of the gift have been stated for the first time in the affidavit in the present notice of motion. Even if that is so, it does not in any way amount to committing breach of any of the terms of the compromise decree. 4. In our opinion the objections raised are frivolous. They are being raised after the respondent has already taken his share from the sale consideration of the property. In the circumstances, we allow the notice of motion in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with interest accrued thereon and (d). 5. After we passed this order, Mr. Ganwani, the learned counsel for the respondent, requests that the order be held in 4 abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. This order will become operative after the expiry of six weeks from today. ( J. N. PATEL, J) ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)