IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 990 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2009 SMT. MUSARRAT JAHAN BEGAM ... Applicant Versus SHRI SHABBAR HAIDAR KHAN ALIAS XABAR CAN ... Respondent Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pavithran A.V., Advocate for the Applicants/Original Respondent No.1, 2(a) and 2(b). Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondents/Original Appellant Nos.1 to 6. Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents/Original Respondent Nos.2(c) and 2(d). Coram:- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 19th March, 2010 P.C. This Civil Application is filed by the Respondent Nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) for the appointment of a receiver inter-alia of a mining concession and properties of the estate of the first Respondents'/husband's parents. 2. It is not necessary to consider the merits of the Applicant's case in respect of the mining lease for we are of the view that the same cannot fall for consideration in the suit filed by them. They must enforce such rights, if any, in appropriate proceedings. 3. The suit was filed initially by the first Respondent and her husband. The only relief claimed in this suit is for a declaration that a Deed of Partition dated 12.1.1995 is illegal, null and void and for the cancellation thereof. The decree was sought on the basis that the Deed of Partition was executed pursuant to a fabricated power of attorney. 4. As far as the properties which form the subject matter of the alleged Deed of Partition are concerned orders have been passed in favour of all the parties in Civil Application No.218 of 2009 filed by the Appellants. No further orders in respect of such properties are therefore necessary. The suit was filed in the year 1998. There has never been a receiver appointed. We do not see any change in circumstances warranting the appointing a receiver now. The interim relief passed in Civil Application No.218/2009 will suffice in the facts of the case. 5. The only other question which requires consideration in this Civil Application is whether a Court Receiver ought to be appointed in respect of the mining lease and the benefit arising therefrom. The mining lease admittedly operates in respect of a property which does not form a part of the estate of the deceased parents. The Applicants however allege that the rights and benefits under the mining lease form a part of the estate of the deceased parents. This is disputed by the Appellants and the other Respondents. Shri Nadkarni submits that the mining lease is only referred to in the Deed of Partition but no right has been created by the Partition Deed in respect thereof. 6. It is neither possible nor necessary to grant any interim relief in respect of the mining lease in these proceedings. 7. Firstly, the suit, as stated above, is only for a declaration that the Deed of Partition dated 12.1.1995 is void. It is not a suit for partition of the properties or for the administration of the estate of the deceased parents. The effect of the decree therefore is that the Defendants cannot enforce any rights based on the Deed of Partition. The Applicant has succeeded in the suit. Thus even if as contended by Shri Dessai that the mining lease is covered by the Deed of Partition, the Applicant must adopt independent proceedings qua their alleged rights therein. 8. In any event the Appellants do not claim any right in respect of the mining lease under the alleged Partition Deed. Whatever manner the Appellants and the other Respondents claim rights in the mining lease, it is not under the Deed of Partition. The Applicants apprehensions so far as they are relevant to this suit viz. that the other parties seek to establish their rights in respect of the mining lease and the Deed of Partition are therefore fully allayed. In these circumstances, in the present proceedings no further protection is required qua the mining lease. 9. The Appellants are at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in respect of their alleged rights in respect of the mining lease. The rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. We have expressed no views on the rights of the parties in that regard. 10. The application is accordingly disposed of. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. at*