1 23 nms 924.09 .doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 924 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 243 OF 2009 Anthony Eugene Pais .. Plaintiff -versus Swadhan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.H.S.Shreepad Murthy for the Plaintiff. Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w Mrs. Deepa Chavan i/b M/s Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Defendant no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1 The Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration that the deed of conveyance dated 6th February, 1992 executed by Defendant no.4 in favour of Defendant no.1 in respect of half share in the suit property is illegal and not binding upon the Plaintiff. Further, he claims declaration as an absolute owner of the suit property. 2 In the plaint, it is stated that the Plaintiff was unaware of the registered conveyance of 1992 untill it was disclosed by the Defendant no.1's advocates in their letter dated 6th January, 2007. 2 23 nms 924.09 .doc 3 From the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that the Plaintiff and Defendant no.4 are related to each other. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant no.4 is residing in Australia. The Plaintiff is aware that the property is tenanted. The Plaintiff has already disclosed the dealings in relation to the suit property prior to the conveyance that is reflected from the plaint and particularly from paragraph nos. 10 to 12 thereof. In such circumstances, and when the Plaintiff stating through out that he is residing at Mumbai, prima facie, the suit filed on 28th November, 2008 for the above declaration is a belated claim. Further, the Plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief on the basis of the reasonable apprehension that his undivided share would be jeopardized by any acts of the Defendants. When the conveyance is registered in 1992 and till date the Defendants have not committed any act, which could be said to be prejudicial to the claim of the Plaintiff, then, all the more this is not a case for grant of any interim relief. 4 Notice of Motion is dismissed. However, all acts of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in relation to the suit property would be subject to the final orders in the suit. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)