1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 838 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 558 OF 2008 Sarita C. Sonavane and Ors. .... Plaintiffs. V/s. Rajan Dharma Sawant and Ors. .... Defendants. ....... Mr. Rajesh D. Bindra for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Mustafa Doctor i/b. Mr. M.L. Chaturvedi for the Defendants. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 13TH MARCH 2008. P.C. :- An injunction has been sought in the Notice of Motion against the Third Defendant, who is the developer who was developing the suit property namely 3/7, Chandivali Mannubhai Seth Chawl, Chandivali Farm, Sakivihar Road, Mumbai till the Plaintiffs receive their share. The 2 case of the Plaintiffs is that their father was working as a liftman, in the employment of Mr. A.D. Sheth and that during the course of his employment, he was provided accommodation in the suit premises which consist of a chawl. The Plaintiffs are three married daughters of Dharma Sawant, the aforesaid employee of Mr. A.D. Sheth. The father of the Plaintiffs expired on 21st August 1981. The First and Second Defendants are the brothers of the plaintiffs while the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants are sisters. The Second Plaintiff, the Court has informed got married some time in 1963, the Third Plaintiff got married on 27th May 1983 while the First Plaintiff got married on 25th May 1990. The averment in paragraph 4 of the plaint is that the Plaintiffs were in occupation of the suit premises jointly together with the brothers and sisters till their marriage. The First and the Second Defendants have entered into an agreement with the Third Defendant under which the Third Defendant paid an amount of Rs.21 lakhs to the First and the Second Defendants in lieu of the occupancy of the premises. The suit has been instituted for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share with the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants. 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the First and Second Defendants states that the agreement which has been entered into with the First and Second Defendants is an agreement for the surrender of tenancy rights. Be that as it may, prima facie on a reading of the plaint, it is evident that the Plaintiffs have left the premises as a result of their marriages and were not in occupation on the date on which the surrender took place. If the Plaintiffs have a valid claim against the First and Second Defendants in respect of the consideration which has been received by the two brothers for the surrender of the premises, that would be a matter of adjudication at the trial. At this stage, in so far as the Third Defendant is concerned, no case has been made out for an order of injunction restraining the re-development of the property. The claim of the Plaintiffs is essentially in respect of the assertion of their share as against the other brothers and sisters. No case has therefore been made out for the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the re- development of the property. The Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed. ------