1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.451 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2412 OF 1994 Khushru Phiroshah Patel & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Rizvi Estate & Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr. J.P. Sen with Mr. Denzil D’Mello for Plaintiffs Mr. D.D. Madon, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Pankaj Kawli with Mr. Deepak A. Lad for Defendant No.1 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Plaintiffs claim that the Suit premises which is a bungalow called Baxter Cottage in Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 was settled upon Trust by one Mrs. Navajbai Patel under a Deed of Settlement dated 12th August 1931. 2. The Defendants claim that the property has been partitioned since about 1940. The Plaintiffs claim that that was a wooden partition put up for convenience. 2 3. Members of two families who were the successors-in-title of the settlor being one Phirozshaw and one Manchershaw Patel occupied the Suit bungalow. 4. Defendants 3,4 and 5 are stated to have dealt with and transferred their undivided share in the co-owned property. Defendant No.1 claims his rights under a Consent Decree passed by and between the Defendants. Consent Decree is challenged as fraudulent and collusive in this Suit. Aside from the said decree Defendant No.1 has not shown how he claims his title from the earlier owner. The challenge to the settlement is not substantiated. Pending the Suit, therefore, Defendant No.1 cannot be allowed to enter into any portion of the Suit bungalow. 5. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The Defendants shall neither dispose off, alienate, encumber any portion of the Suit bungalow nor induct or allow any person to enter upon any portion of the suit bungalow. 6. Mr. Madon says that the Defendant No.1 desires to protect his property by appointing a Security Guard. Defendant No.1 may appoint Security Guard, but such Security Guard shall not enter into the Suit property. 7. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly. 8. The Defendant No.1 is the only contesting party, Defendant No.1 has filed 3 its written statement. Issues have been framed. There is a related Suit being Suit No.537 of 1984. Counsel state that written statement has been filed even in that Suit and issues have been framed. 9. Plaintiffs in each of the Suits shall file their respective affidavit of examination-in-chief as well as their affidavit of documents and produce original documents for consideration of their admissibility. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)