Sudha Aziz Jhaveri and Ors. v. Bharat Amarchand Doshi and Ors.

4.7. From the above, it is clear that Defendant No. 4 who had initially filed the Suit for partition on the basis of the registered Gift Deed by Chandangauri in favour of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and Defendant No. 4 allowed her Suit to be dismissed for non prosecution and is now supporting Defendant No. 1.

5. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs has made the following submissions:-

5.1. That the above Suit has been filed, inter alia, for partition of a plot of land bearing CTS No. 117, admeasuring an area of 3169.17 Sq.mtrs. along with the structure standing thereon admeasuring 2,234 Sq.mtrs., more particularly described at Exh. “A” to the Plaint which has been gifted to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4 by their mother Mrs. Chandangauri Amarchand Doshi (“late Chandangauri”) under a duly stamped and registered Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001 and for consequential reliefs. Defendant No.1 has unlawfully misappropriated the rents, Security Deposit and other gains / income received from the suit property and not provided the details in respect thereof to the Plaintiffs, who are the legal and rightful owners of the said property. Plaintiffs have therefore sought an order and decree against Defendant No.1 in respect of the unlawful gains made by him in respect of the suit property and an order directing Defendant No.1 to disclose on oath the entire accounts in respect of amounts received by him in respect of the suit property;

5.2. That the manner in which the Plaintiffs have acquired right, title and interest in the suit property under the registered and stamped Gift Deeds has been stated in detail in the Plaint. As stated in the plaint, Defendant No.1 without any authority in law has been enjoying the benefits in the form of rents and monies generating from the suit property and despite repeated requests, Defendant No.1 has not provided to the Plaintiffs who are the rightful owners of the suit property accounts of the income derived from the suit property;

5.3. That in the year 2005, Defendant No.4 filed Suit No. 2942 of 2005, inter alia, against Defendant No.1, Mr. Lalit Kapur and M/s. BPL Limited for partition of the suit property on the basis of the same Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001. The Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were proforma Defendants in the said Suit No. 2492 of 2005. Several orders came to be passed in the said Suit, including the appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the suit property and order directing the Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the suit property as Defendant No.1 had failed and neglected to execute the agency agreement with the Court Receiver.

5.4. That as Suit No. 2492 of 2005 was pending, the Plaintiff therein (Defendant No. 4 herein) did not take any action to pursue her rights under the Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001. However, subsequently somewhere in or around 05.11.2014, Plaintiffs came to know that on account of some arrangement arrived at between Defendant No.4 and the 1st Defendant, Defendant No.4 was not pursuing the Suit filed by her and accordingly the said Suit had been dismissed for nonprosecution by order dated 05.11.2014;

5.5. That Defendant No.1 has all along been aware about the registered Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001 under which the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4 are the absolute owners of the suit property. Defendant No.1 has not disputed the Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001 nor challenged it. Defendant No.1 is aware and had been put to notice about the execution of Gift Deed since 2001. Inspite of the same he has refused to provide any information with respect to the Tenants / Licensees inducted by him in the Suit property and has been illegally and unlawfully using and occupying the same. That Defendant No.1 has illegally earned huge rents from the suit property upon which the Plaintiffs have a lawful claim. Plaintiffs apprehend that the Defendant No.1 may sell out the Suit property without informing them and hence seek urgent reliefs. That today the suit property is vacant and Defendant No.1 has not been successful in preserving and augmenting it & hence Receiver be appointed.

6. PER CONTRA, Mr. Cama, learned Advocate for Defendant No. 1 has in his reply made the following submissions:-

6.1. That Plaintiffs have filed the present suit in respect of the suit property described at Exh. “A” to the Plaint. It is the case of Defendant No. 1 that he has substantiate legal and judicial rights in the suit property in the following manner:-

(i) That Defendant No.1 has 100% ownership of the suit property under an oral family arrangement, duly acted upon by the parties under which substantial payments were made by / on behalf of Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4;

(ii) That Strictly without prejudice and in the alternative to the above submission, he would submit that even assuming that the Gift Deed dated 31.03.2001 under which the Plaintiffs’ claim subsists and holds the field, Defendant No. 4 was a 1/4th co-owner of the property. Defendant No. 1 has admittedly settled the claims / disputes with Defendant No. 4 Ms. Jyoti Choudhary (for short ‘Jyoti’) and Jyoti has executed a Release Deed dated 23.11.2022 in favour of Defendant No.1, releasing unto him any and all rights, title and interest that she may have in the suit property. As per the Plaintiffs’ case, Jyoti would be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property under the subject Deed of Gift. Thus, even going by the Plaintiffs’ case, upon Jyoti releasing her rights to Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 has 1/4th share in the suit property. According to him one co-owner can, in law, enjoy and occupy the entire suit property and there is no question of dispossessing the Defendant No. 1 therefrom. This is, as aforesaid, and as specifically recorded in Recital 4 of the Deed of Release, without prejudice to the aforesaid family arrangement and Defendant No.1’s case that Defendant No. 1 is entitled to a 100% share in the suit property;

(iii) Even otherwise, assuming arguendo that the Gift

Deed subsists, Defendant No.1 was a tenant of the suit property and has been recognized as such by his mother Chandangauri and the Plaintiffs as is evident from the documents placed on record, including but not limited to the letters from Chandangauri placed on record by Defendant NO. 4 (Page Nos.[6] and 7 of D4’s Affidavit). That Plaintiffs’ claim through Chandangauri is therefore bound by her prior acceptance of Defendant No. 1 as a tenant of the suit property. Therefore Defendant No. 1 has every right to continue in exclusive possession of the entire suit property;

6.2. That the fact that Defendant No. 1 is in exclusive possession of the suit property is an admitted position and is borne out inter alia from (i) the nature of the reliefs sought in the Notice of Motion i.e. seeking that the Court Receiver take possession from Defendant No. 1 and (ii) paragraph No.22 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder, in which it has specifically been stated that over the years Defendant No. 1 has “….exclusively enjoyed benefits of immovable properties….” which include the suit property. Thus exclusive possession of Defendant No.1 is admitted;

6.3. That the interim order sought, is in effect to dispossess Defendant No. 1 and to hand over possession to the Court Receiver. This relief which is entirely misconceived as it seeks interim relief which is not in furtherance or in aid of the final reliefs. The final reliefs in the Plaint are only for a decree partitioning the property and to put “the Plaintiffs” jointly with Defendant No. 4 in possession of ¼th share each in the suit property and for a direction to Defendant No.1 to deposit rent / license fees / income received and to be received in respect of the suit property and to disclose accounts in respect of payments made for his using the suit property. That it is evident from the above that there is no final relief seeking a declaration that Defendant No. 1 is either a trespasser, or in unauthorized occupation and possession of the suit property. There is no prayer for handing over of possession by Defendant No. 1. This being the case, there is no final relief sought for in the Plaint which could ever have the effect, even if the suit is decreed, of removing Defendant No. 1 from possession of the suit property. Thus no interim relief having the effect of dispossessing Defendant No. 1 can be granted in aid of, or in furtherance of the above final reliefs. Before I proceed to Mr. Cama’s next submission, prayer clause (d) in the suit plaint prays for Receiver in the interim. Hence, the above submission of Mr. Cama is incorrect.

6.4. That the case of Defendant No. 1 is that under an oral family arrangement, as set out below, Defendant No. 1 is the sole and exclusive owner, and is entitled to the suit property in full. This is borne out from the following facts and events: (a) The father of the parties, Amarchand Doshi was admittedly the owner of the subject property. Amarchand Doshi died on 15.08.1984. Under his Will dated 15.12.1965, the suit property was bequeathed to his wife Chandangauri; (b) From 09.10.1986, under a Power of Attorney executed by Chandangauri in favour of Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 has been in exclusive possession of the suit property (apart from the then tenancies existing thereon). Defendant No. 1 has from time to time admittedly given the subject property or parts thereof on leave and license from 1998 inter alia to BPL Limited and Skoda. At no point in time have any of the Plaintiffs, vide any legal proceedings, ever asserted any right, title or interest in the suit property till the present suit filed in 2015 and they have never taken any steps whatsoever for the purpose of clearing the existing tenants and / or (even for 8 years after the filing of the suit) maintaining the subject property and / or preserving the property. Once again, this submission is again incorrect. Defendant No. 4 filed the Partition Suit in 2005 for self and the Plaintiffs on the basis of registered Gift Deed.

6.5. That on 31.03.2001, the subject Gift Deed purportedly came to be executed by Chandangauri in favour of the Plaintiffs and Jyoti. It is only at this stage that questions were raised against Defendant No. 1 for the first time. As borne out from the facts set out hereafter, the Gift Deed was never acted upon and was given a go-by and eventually superceded by the oral Deed of Family Arrangement. From the execution of the Gift Deed in March, 2001 and the Advocates’ correspondence in 2001 there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs had at any prior point in time asserted their right to the suit property. That Plaintiffs neither sought possession thereof nor sought to enforce any rights in respect of the suit property. They did not offer to maintain the suit property or pay a rupee in this regard. In fact, from the record it appears clear that Plaintiffs did nothing whatsoever in respect of the suit property as they were well aware that the Gift Deed was never intended to be acted upon;

6.6. That for carrying out the settlement, one Hiranandani Construction Private Limited (for short ‘HCPL’) and Hiranandani Developers Private Ltd. (for short ‘HDPL’) were found as appropriate Developers to pay off the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and between 2008-2012 HCPL / HDPL and / or Defendant No. 1 made the following payments to parties herein: Jyoti Choudhary – Defendant No. 4 1.50 Crores Nalini Shah – Plaintiff No. 3 35 Lakhs Sudha Jhaveri – Plaintiff No. 1 15 Lakhs Sonal Dhanak – Plaintiff No. 2 45 Lakhs (55 Lakhs according to the Plaintiffs) Harish Doshi – Defendant No.2 1.50 Crores Kirit Dohsi – Defendant No.3 77 Lakhs

6.7. That it is an admitted position that from and after 1986 Defendant No. 1 has exclusively been in possession and has been handling the subject property, including giving the same on leave and license. No objection was ever taken to the same by the Plaintiffs. Certain letters have been written by Chandangauri and one by the Plaintiffs in 2001, through Advocates which were entirely given a goby and no action was taken further to the same. The Plaintiffs have not asserted any rights in respect of the subject property either before or after the execution of the Gift Deed on 31.03.2001. The Plaintiffs have never shown any interest whatsoever in the property or in its maintenance. While the Plaintiffs initially sought to take cover of the suit filed by Jyoti, they did not at any point themselves assert any rights. That even after the Court Receiver stood discharged on 07.06.2007 and until filing of the present suit 8 years later, the Plaintiffs did not take any steps whatsoever to assert any rights whatsoever in respect of the suit property;

6.8. That strictly without prejudice to Defendant No. 1’s ownership rights, either 100% or as a ¼th co-owner to Jyoti i.e. Defendant No. 4, Defendant No. 1 is entitled to continue in possession of the property on the basis of his admittedly being a tenant of the subject property. The Plaintiffs claim only through Chandangauri. Chandangauri has however specifically acknowledged that the Plaintiff was, in fact, a tenant of the subject property. This admission is contained in the following documents:- (a) A letter dated 14.05.1998 addressed by Chandangauri certifying that Defendant No. 1 had been granted tenancy rights inter alia for the suit property and all structures, along with the basement underneath the building. The letter records that there is a specific right vested in Defendant No. 1 “to sublet, assign, transfer these rights and/or carry on any lawful business”. Thus, it is clear that Chandangauri has granted a tenancy in respect of the subject property and Defendant No. 1 has been given unfettered rights to sublet, assign, transfer and/or carry on any lawful business on the subject property; (b) Further, by a letter dated 30.03.2001, addressed on behalf of Chandangauri, her Advocates specifically stated that Defendant No. 1 is one of the tenants in respect of the premises standing on the subject plot, and instructed Defendant No. 1 to make payment of the monthly rent to Jyoti. It was further noted that Defendant No. 1 had sublet the premises and the documents in that regard were sought for by the Advocates for Chandangauri;

(c) Pertinently, Defendant No. 4 has set out at length and accepted the existence of Defendant No. 1’s tenancy right in paragraphs 4 and 5 of her Affidavit dated 26.08.2022 filed in the present Notice of Motion;

(d) The Plaintiffs too rely on Defendant No. 1’s tenancy right to contend, albeit, out of context, that Defendant No. 1 recognized Chandangauri as the owner of the suit property. This too is a clear admission of Defendant No. 1’s tenancy rights;

6.9. Hence, accordingly, Defendant No. 1 cannot be evicted from the subject property as he has tenancy rights therein. The appointment of the Court Receiver would amount to, in effect, dispossessing Defendant No. 1 of his tenancy rights. Even otherwise, this Court respectfully, would not have jurisdiction to pass such orders, as all matters relating to possession of a tenanted property, either under the Rent Act or under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Small Causes Court.

6.10. On the basis of the above submissions, he would pray for dismissal of the Notice of Motion.

6.11. Mr. Cama in support of his above submissions has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Nargindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam @

(ii) Bombay Forging Ltd Vs. M/s. Manilal & Son[2];

(iii) Therakan D. Joseph Vs. M/s. Dolphin Developers[3];

(iv) Govind Narain Rao Desai Vs. Vallabhrao

2 Judgment dated 22nd & 23.03.2016 in OS Appeal (L) No. 579 of 2015 3 Judgment dated 15.10.2013 in Appeal from Order No. 1108 of 2013 Narayanrao Desai[4];

(v) Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ashok Kumar

(vi) Pralhad Rai Dalmia Huf & Ors. Vs. Sat Narain

(vii) S. Saleema Bi Vs. S. Pyari Begum & Anr[7];

(viii)Maharaj Jagat Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Sawal Bhawani Singh & Ors.8;

(ix) Metro Marins & Anr. Vs. Bonus Watch Co (P) Ltd & Ors.9;

(x) Rajiv Sanghvi & Ors. Vs. Pradip R. Kamdar &

7. Mr. Kachwala, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 has drawn my attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated 12.04.2017 and supported the Plaintiffs’ case. He would submit that Defendant No. 1 has not only intermeddled with the suit property but also the Trust property out of the said estate to the exclusion of the other family members. These Defendants have categorically denied the oral family settlement alleged by Defendant No. 1. These Defendants have supported each and every submission made by Mr. Kamat and for brevity sake, I am not repeating the same.

8. I have heard the submissions from the respective Advocates and perused the pleadings. Submissions made by the Advocates has

10 Judgment dated 30.06.2022 in OS Interim Application No. 571 of 2022 in Suit No. 44 of 2021 received due consideration of the Court.

9. At the outset, it is seen that though Defendant No. 1 claims substantive legal rights in the suit property since 1986, it is only for the first time in 2016 i.e. in the written statement dated 12.02.2016 he has averred his substantive right. He has said so on the basis of a purported oral family settlement of 1986 and modified later. No explanation is forthcoming for his continued silence on this alleged family settlement prior to 2016.

10. Next the most crucial circumstance for consideration in the present case is the registered Gift Deed in favour of Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 1 has been specifically informed as far back as on 30.03.2001 by Chandangauri’s Advocate in his legal Notice about this fact. Despite being aware, he has not taken any steps, if he claims to hold 100% right in the property or even tenancy rights in the suit property as argued by Mr. Cama.

11. It is seen that from 24.09.1984 upto the filing of the written statement on 12.02.2016 in the present suit 19 specific events / incidents took place which are relevant and have a direct nexus to Defendant No. 1 now claiming to be 100% owner of the suit property and / or tenant in respect of the suit property. These 19 incidents are outlined herein under:-

(i) On 24.09.1984, Defendant No. 1 along with all parties in the present suit filed an affidavit / declaration acknowledging the fact that in view of his father’s Will dated 15.12.1965 only his mother Chandangauri had absolute right, title and interest in the said estate including the suit property.

(ii) On 09.10.1986 Chandangauri gave a Power of Attorney to the Defendant No. 1 to manage the estate. At the time of hearing copy of the Power of Attorney was shown to me. Perusal of the same clearly shows that Defendant No. 1 has been appointed as agent of Chandangauri to manage the said estate. The said Power of Attorney cannot be interpreted differently as alleged by Defendant No. 1. It does not in any manner create tenancy in favour of Defendant No. 1.

(iii) On 23.09.1989 Defendant No. 1 gave his consent for grant of probate of his father’s Will in favour of Chandangauri in Probate Petition No. 558 of 1998. If he would have claimed tenancy, which he does now, he could never have given his consent. Hence the case of he being a tenant since 1986 of the suit property is not acceptable. Claim of tenancy cannot be based upon convenient interpretation of some documents. It has to be based on strong proven facts. Mr. Cama in his usual fairness submitted that Defendant No. 1 does not have any tenancy agreement or rent receipt issued in his favour by Chandangauri. The letter dated 14.05.1998 produced by Defendant No. 4 cannot be accepted by me at face value. I will also not give any benefit of tenancy to Defendant No. 1 on the basis of the contents of the letter dated 30.03.2001 by the solicitor of Chandangauri.

(iv) On 05.06.1998 Chandangauri issued letter of Authority to Lalit Kapur permitting Defendant No. 1 to let out the suit property. Defendant No. 1 never objected to this letter if he claimed tenancy or ownership of the suit property since 1986.

(v) On 15.03.2001 Chandangauri revoked the Power of

(vi) On 21.03.2001 Chandangauri by registered Gift Deed gifted the suit property to Plaintiffs and Defendant NO. 4 (the daughter). Incidentally this registered gift deed is not challenged by Defendant No. 1 till date.

(vii) On 30.03.2001, Advocate of Chandangauri issued a notice to Defendant No. 1 and informed him about the registered Gift Deed. Thus since 2001, Defendant No. 1 was aware of this position. No family arrangement and / or tenancy was pleaded by him to assert his substantive rights, until the written statement was filed by him. (viii)On 02.04.2001 Defendant No. 1 replied to the above Advocate’s notice and did not plead the oral family arrangement and / or tenancy in respect of the suit property.

(ix) On 26.09.2001 Probate Petition No. 558 of 1989 which was dismissed for default earlier was restored.

(x) Defendant No. 1 filed a caveat withdrawing his consent given earlier and opposed the grant of probate. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1 did not cite any specific reason for opposing the probate much less pleading ownership / oral family arrangement and / or tenancy in respect of the suit property.

(xi) On 03.06.2003 Chandangauri filed a Criminal

Complaint against Defendant No. 1 with the Dy. Commissioner of Police for cheating, forgery and misappropriation of funds in respect of the suit property.

(xii) On 08.07.2005, Defendant No. 1 himself strangely withdrew his caveat of objection to his father’s Will in favour of Chandangauri. On that date the Testamentary Suit No. 16 of 2002 (from Probate Petition No. 558/1989) was disposed of. (xiii)On 17.08.2005, Defendant No. 4 (Jyoti) filed her suit for partition of the suit property on the basis of the registered Gift Deed against Defendant No. 1. (xiv)On 27.09.2005 Court Receiver was appointed in respect of the suit property.

(xv) Record clearly indicates that for the next two years

Defendant No. 1 did not abide by orders of this Court, did not co-operate with the Court Receiver, resultantly requiring this Court to pass an order in the Notice of Motion directing the Court Receiver to take forcible possession from Defendant No.1. (xvi)On 07.06.2007, Defendant No. 4 withdrew her Notice of Motion since she compromised with Defendant No. 1 and is now supporting him. Defendant No. 1 claims to have purchased the ¼th share of Defendant No. 4 in the suit property. This is argued by Mr. Cama in the alternative to claiming tenancy / ownership of the suit property.

(xvii) On 08.01.2013 after Chandangauri’s demise,

Defendant No. 1 filed her Will from his custody which bequeathed the said estate to him to the exclusion of all other parties / siblings.

(xviii) On 23.04.2015, the present Partition suit is filed.

(xix) On 12.02.2016, Written Statement is filed by

Defendant No. 1 alleging an oral family settlement of 1986 and in the alternative claiming tenancy of the suit property from Chandangauri. It is also claimed that the family settlement was modified subsequently.

12. It is further seen that save and except averments, no substantive documents / material evidence are placed on record to prima facie get convinced with Defendant No. 1’s case. All that Mr. Cama has argued is that this Court should not disturb the long standing possession of the suit property with Defendant No. 1. On the basis of the abovementioned observations and findings, it is clear that the suit property is being clearly wasted. I am informed across the bar that for almost the past one year it is lying vacant. No concrete and fruitful steps are taken by Defendant No. 1 to let it out so as to preserve and augment the same and receive proceeds from the same. The suit property is a substantial commercial property. The same is being wasted today causing immense prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Record shows that Defendant No. 1 is in charge of the said estate and a parallel suit by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is also pending in this Court regarding the Trust property which is also held by Defendant No. 1 though that property has no nexus with the suit property.

13. I am not convinced with Mr. Cama’s submissions. Prima facie on the basis of the above findings, the Plaintiffs have made out a case for appointment of Receiver. While hearing the matter, I suggested to Mr. Cama that if Defendant No. 1 cannot get a Lessee / Licencee within the next two months, then the Receiver would stand appointed automatically for the suit property. The suggestion was given since Defendant No. 1 had volunteered to get the lessee / licensee on his own. This was in view of the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by this Court. After taking instructions from Defendant No. 1, the suggestion was rejected resulting in passing the present order on merits. On the issue of delay also I am not convinced. It is seen that from 2005 to 2014 the Partition Suit filed by Defendant No. 4 was pending. The timeline of events alluded to herein above suggests the manner in which the parties conducted themselves. Defendant No. 1 was also prevented by this Court to implead himself in the probate petition in place of his mother late Chandangauri. It is also claimed by the Plaintiffs that the alleged Will dated 18.09.2012 of Chandangauri is an act of forgery by Defendant No. 1. All these contentions will require parties to lead evidence.

14. On Mr. Cama’s submissions that admissions in pleadings will constitute a waiver of proof cannot be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Much more substantive evidence, prima facie, will have to be shown by the Defendant No. 1 beyond the mere letter dated 30.03.2001 by the Solicitor for Chandangauri. There is otherwise overwhelming evidence for consideration as alluded to and discussed herein above against Defendant No. 1. Hence the Judgment in Nagindas Ramda (supra) will not apply. Further the Judgment in Bombay Forging (supra) will also not apply as no proof of tenancy, rent receipts, Agreement etc has been produced by Defendant No. 1. Decision in the case of Therakan D. Joseph (supra), Govind Narain Rao Desai (supra) and ) Ravindra Kumar Agarwal (supra) are clearly distinguishable on facts for appointment of Receiver in the present case. On delay I have already dealt with herein above. So also on prima facie case, I am not convinced with the submissions of Mr. Cama. They stand comprehensively rejected. In the facts of the present case, Court Receiver is thus required to be appointed. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and c(ii) except the bracketed portion which reads thus:- “(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as the Receiver of the suit property with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including to collect all rent / license fees / income / amounts in respect of the suit property including to take possession of the suit property [and to handover possession of the same to the Plaintiffs].

(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit this

(ii) disclose the entire accounts in respect of the payments made to Defendant No. 1 towards rent, compensation and / or license fees for using and / or occupying the suit property.”

15. It is further directed that the Court Receiver shall take immediate steps to let out the suit property to prospective lessees / licencees in accordance with law. After complete disclosure in terms of c(ii) is made, liberty to apply.

16. Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

17. After the Judgment is pronounced, Mr. Karande, learned Advocate for Defendant No. 1 seeks stay of the Judgment / Order. Mr. Bhure, learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs opposes the said request.

18. Considering the observations and findings which have been recorded and the gross facts in the present case, I am not inclined to accede to the request of Mr. Karande. Hence, the oral application for stay stands rejected. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Amberkar MOHAN AMBERKAR