{"id":94361,"date":"2010-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-15T16:21:17","modified_gmt":"2017-04-15T10:51:17","slug":"chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
    nms3527.02                             1\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                        NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3527 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                          IN\n\n                               SUIT NO. 4007 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                                    ALONG WITH\n\n                   COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 267 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                                          IN\n                             igSUIT NO. 4007 OF 2002\n\n                                    ALONG WITH \n                           \n                    COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 73 OF 2010\n                                      IN\n                            SUIT NO. 4007 OF 2002\n         \n\n\n    Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & Ors.                        ...Plaintiff.\n      \n\n\n\n                  Vs.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors.                          ...Defendants.\n\n\n\n    Ms. Manjiri Shah with Mr. Z.A. Jariwala and Ms. P. Mhatre i\/by M\/s. \n\n\n\n\n\n    Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.\n    Mr. Holambe along with Mr. G.P. Khan for Defendant Nos. 1(a) and 1(b).\n    Mr. G.G. Ketkar, 1st Assistant to the Court Receiver, present. \n    Mr.  Virag  Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel  with  Ms. Jasmin  Sheth with  Swapnil \n    Khatri i\/by M\/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Defendant No. 6.\n    Ms. Punita Soni i\/by M\/s. Bilawala & Co. for Defendant Nos. 7,11 to 14,16, \n    17, 27, 28 and 31.\n    Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for Defendant No.15.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::\n     nms3527.02                                  2\n\n    Mr. K.K. Shroff  along with Ms. Snehali Karkera i\/by M\/s. Dhruva & Co. for \n    Defendant No.8.\n    Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for Defendant No.236 and Flat Purchasers of Flat Nos. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n    G-42, 44,11,21 & 23.\n    Mr. Nainesh Amin for Defendant Nos. 25 and 26.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Mr. M.V. Hakrogi for Defendant Nos. 11 and 13.\n    Ms. Deepa Kamath for the Flat Purchaser. 235.\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                                    CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                    DATED  :-  5TH MAY, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    P.C.-\n<\/p>\n
    1<\/span><\/p>\n
                 As the basic facts, parties  and properties are common, interlinked <\/p>\n
    and interconnected and therefore, for proper understanding of the matter, <\/p>\n
    for clarity and to avoid repetition; the submissions and the arguments are <\/p>\n
    made   only   in   these   two   Motions   and   the   Court   Receiver’s   Report,   and <\/p>\n
    therefore, this common order, though heard separately one after other. The <\/p>\n
    facts of both suits are also dealt with separately.\n<\/p>\n
    2            (As Per Suit No. 1961 of 2003) The Plaintiff is one of the daughters <\/p>\n
    of Chaudhary Shaukat Hasmullah (“Shaukat”) who died intestate on 5th <\/p>\n
    March, 1995 leaving behind 11 heirs.  Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons, <\/p>\n
    Defendant No.4 is widow and Defendant Nos. 5 to 10 are 6 daughters.\n<\/p>\n
    3            The basic prayers in the suit, as well as, in the notice of motion are <\/p>\n
    for administration of the estate of her father Shaukat and for setting aside <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
    (a)   relinquishment   deed   dated   1st  July,   1995,   signed\/   executed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiff for release of her share; (b) consent terms dated 15th April, 1998;\n<\/p>\n
    (c)   development   agreement   dated   22nd  January,   2002   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
    Defendant No.32; (d) power of Attorney dated 26th March, 1998 in favour <\/p>\n
    of   Defendant   No.1.     The   Plaintiff   along   with   other   heirs   of   Shaukat <\/p>\n
    executed a general power of attorney dated 26th March, 1998 in favour of <\/p>\n
    Defendant No.1 to deal with the suit property.   Clause 7 of the Power of <\/p>\n
    Attorney empowers Defendant No.1 to sign the consent terms.  Clause 21 <\/p>\n
    entitles Defendant No.1 to deal with the property for and on behalf of the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiff. Clause 25 empowers Defendant No.1 to sign, execute and deliver <\/p>\n
    all contracts, conveyances and assignments and another documents for and <\/p>\n
    on behalf of the Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    4            The Plaintiff has claimed 6.73% interest in the estate of Defendant <\/p>\n
    Nos.   1   to   3   who   are   entitled   to   13.46%   interest   in   the   suit   property.\n<\/p>\n
    However, in the arguments, restricted as 2.97% of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
    5            The   sons   of   Shaukat   (Defendant   No.1-3),   widow   of   Shaukat <\/p>\n
    (Defendant No. 4) and other daughters of Shaukat (Defendant No. 5-11) <\/p>\n
    have opposed the claims of the Plaintiffs and have affirmed the Deed of <\/p>\n
    Relinquishment and the Power of Attorney granted in favour of Defendant <\/p>\n
    No.1 herein. Defendant No.5 and 10 have  subsequently filed a contrary <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
    affidavit   however,   no   independent   proceedings   challenging   the <\/p>\n
    relinquishment deed have been filed by Defendant No.5 or Defendant No. <\/p>\n
    10 or any other heir of Shaukat.\n<\/p>\n
    6            The Supplementary Deed of Partnership dated 23rd September, 1995 <\/p>\n
    of Haji Shaukat & Co also records that the female members of Shaukat <\/p>\n
    Branch i.e. Defendant No. 4 (widow), and Plaintiff No.1, Defendant No. <\/p>\n
    5-11   (daughters   of   Shaukat)   have   released   their   respective   undivided <\/p>\n
    shares in the estate of late Shaukat in favour of Defendant No. 1-3 (sons of <\/p>\n
    Shaukat).     The   same   release   by   all   the   female   heirs   of   Shaukat   is   also <\/p>\n
    recorded   in   the   Deed   of   Partnership   dated   11th  July,   1995   of   Shaukat <\/p>\n
    Shahadat & Co..\n<\/p>\n
    7            As submitted, in written notes also without prejudice that even in the <\/p>\n
    event prayer (d) of the Plaint is granted i.e. the Consent Decrees are set <\/p>\n
    aside and the three original suits being Suit No. 1350 of 1980, Suit No. 843 <\/p>\n
    of 1985 and Suit No. 3170 of 1985 are restored, the following shall be the <\/p>\n
    share of the Plaintiff;\n<\/p>\n
    8            M\/s. Haji Shaukat & Co. shall have 1\/6th or 16.66% share in the Suit <\/p>\n
    Property to be divided between the then existing partners in their profit <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
    sharing ratio of 20% each as follows –\n<\/p>\n
                 Shaukat<\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 2<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 3<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 23<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 24<\/span><\/p>\n
    Shaukat shall as a partner shall be entitled to 16.66% of 1\/6 th  in the Suit <\/p>\n
    Property being 2.97% in the Suit Property.\n<\/p>\n
    9            M\/s. Shaukat Shahadat & Co. shall have 1\/3 share or 33.3% share in <\/p>\n
    the Suit Property to be divided between the partners then in their profit <\/p>\n
    sharing ratio as follows.\n<\/p>\n
                 Shaukat (25%)<\/p>\n
                 Chaudhary Shahadat Hasmullah (25%)<\/p>\n
                 Abdul Basalat (25%)<\/p>\n
                 Rahimtulla Rubali (12.5%)<\/p>\n
                 Defendant No. 23 (12.5%)<\/p>\n
    Shaukat  as   a  partner   shall   be   entitled  to  25%  of   1\/3 share   in   the   Suit <\/p>\n
    Property being 8.3% in the Suit Property.   Therefore, Shaukat had in the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    aggregate   entitled   to   2.7%   +   8.3%   in   the   Suit   Property   aggregating   to <\/p>\n
    approximately 11% in the Suit Property.\n<\/p>\n
    10           The Plaintiff in Suit No. 1961 of 2003, as an heir of Shaukat may be <\/p>\n
    entitled   to   a   certain   share   in   this   11%   which   as   per   Muslim   Law   shall <\/p>\n
    devolve as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 Widow (1\/8)                    =       1.38%                   =        1.38%\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                 Sons (7\/52 each)               =       2.14% each x 3          =        6.42%\n                                      \n                 Daughter (7\/104 each) =                0.45% each x 7          =        3.21%\n                                                                                ------------------\n                                     \n                                                                                =      11%\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 Therefore,   the   Plaintiff   as   per   her   case   will   be   entitled   to   0.45% <\/p>\n
    share in the Suit Property, in the event prayers as set out in the Plaint are <\/p>\n
    granted.\n<\/p>\n
    11           An amount of Rs.2,05,72,318\/- (Rupees Two crores five lakh seventy <\/p>\n
    two thousand three hundred eighteen only) has been paid by Defendant <\/p>\n
    No.32 to sons of Shaukat (Defendant No.1,2 and 3) towards their share of <\/p>\n
    gross sale proceeds under the Development Agreement (which may include <\/p>\n
    the share of Plaintiff relinquished to Defendant No.1, 2, 3). By and under <\/p>\n
    order dated 12th  August, 2003,   in Notice of Motion No. 1922 of 2003 in <\/p>\n
    Suit No. 1961 of 2003, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 deposited the sum of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    5,45,000\/- (Rupees five lakhs forty five thousand only) towards their share <\/p>\n
    of gross sale proceeds under the Development Agreement.  Further, by and <\/p>\n
    under order dated 3rd  December, 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 2782 of <\/p>\n
    2006 in Suit No. 1961 of 2003 refused injunction against the Suit Property <\/p>\n
    and directed status quo in respect of Flat of Defendant No.1 towards claim <\/p>\n
    of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    12           The suit property is an immovable property admeasuring 1596.53 sq. <\/p>\n
    meters   situated  at   Chakala,  Andheri  (East)   Mumbai,   (Notice   of  Motion  <\/p>\n
    3527 of 2002), in  Suit No. 4007 of 2002, owned by –<\/p>\n
\n         \n\n\n    M\/s. Haji Shaukat & Co.   M\/s. Shaukat Shahadat                                 M\/s. Premier Iron  \n      \n\n\n\n                                             & Co.                                  & Metal Industries\n                                                                                    (50% share)\n<\/pre>\n
                 !————————————————————-!<\/p>\n
                 !                                                             !
\n                 !                                                             !
\n       Partners                                                             Partners
\n    1 Choudhary Shaukat Hasmullah                                         1 Shaukat<\/p>\n
       (“Shaukat”)                                                        2 Choudhary Shahadat
\n                                                                            Hasmullah (“Shahadat”)
\n    2 Chaudhary Mohd. Rafiq Shaukat                                       3 Abdul Basalat Rubali
\n       (D8)
\n    3 Chaudhary Mohd. Zubair                                              4  Rahimtulla Rubali
\n       Shaukat Ali (D9)<\/p>\n
                                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
    4 Chaudhary Abdul Gani Shaukat                               5  Sharif Hassan Rubali
\n       (D 10)                                                     (D 27)<\/p>\n
    5  Sharif Hassan Rubali (D 27)<\/p>\n
    6  Ahmed Rubali (D 28)<\/p>\n
    13           Disputes arose between the partners of M\/s. Haji Shaukat & Co. and <\/p>\n
    M\/s. Shaukat Shahadat & Co. resulting in the following proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
    (i)          Suit No. 1350 of 1980  was filed by Shahadat against Shaukat and <\/p>\n
    other partners for dissolution and accounts of Shaukat Shahadat & Co. and <\/p>\n
    declaration that Deed of Retirement of Shahadat was not valid and binding <\/p>\n
    on him.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)         Suit No. 3170 of 1985    was filed by M\/s. Shaukat Shahadat & Co.\n<\/p>\n
    against Shahadat for declaration that the firm was the co-owner of the Suit <\/p>\n
    Property and Shahadat had no individual right in the Suit Property.\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)        Suit   No.   843   of   1985  was   filed   by   Shahadat   against   Shaukat, <\/p>\n
    Defendant No. 24-26 for declaration that Shahadat was entitled to 1\/6th <\/p>\n
    share in the Suit Property.\n<\/p>\n
    14           Shahadat   intestate   died   on   15th  March,   1994   and   Shaukat   died <\/p>\n
    intestate on 5th March, 1995 leaving behind the following heirs:\n<\/p>\n
    (a) Shahadat branch<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
                 ——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                 !                            !                                          !\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                        \n          Widow                             Sons                                    Daughters\n                 (P4)                         !                                          !\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                                              !                                          !\n                          ---------------------------                          ------------------------------\n                          !         !          !        !                       !        !        !        !\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                         P1       P2       P3     D1                            D2    D3      D4     D5\n                                                        !\n                                                    ----------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                                     !       !\n                                            ig  D1(a)    D1(b)\n                                              Widow    Daughter\n                                                            (Plaintiffs in Suit No. 1717 of 2009)\n                                          \n                                                            (Separate from these two suits)\n          \n\n\n    (b) Shaukat branch\n       \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 ——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                 !                  !                                           !\n          Widow         Sons                                                Daughters\n\n\n\n\n\n           (D7)                     !                                           !\n                                    !                                           !\n                    -----------------------            -----------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                    !         !          !             !         !      !       !        !        !        !\n                    D8     D9      D10                 D11  D12  D13   D14    D15   D16                    D17\n\n\n                                                           (Plaintiffs in Suit No. 1961 of 2003)\n\n\n    15           The female members of Shaukat branch i.e. widow and 7 daughters \n\n<\/pre>\n
    had vide Deed of Relinquishment dated 1st July, 1995 relinquished all their <\/p>\n
                                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
    right, title and interest in the estate of Shaukat in favour of the sons of <\/p>\n
    Shaukat i.e. D8, D9 and D10.\n<\/p>\n
    16           By recording above, the Consent Terms dated 15th April, 1998 filed in <\/p>\n
    Suit No. 1350 of 1980, the aforesaid three suits came to be disposed off <\/p>\n
    and the shares of each branch of Shaukat and Shahadat family came to be <\/p>\n
    determined to the extent of 8.50% to the Shahadat branch and to extent of <\/p>\n
    41.50% to the Shaukat branch.\n<\/p>\n
                 (As per Suit No. 4007 of 2002) <\/p>\n
    17           Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   Consent   Terms,   by   and   under   a <\/p>\n
    Development   Agreement   dated   22nd  January,   2002   executed   between <\/p>\n
    Defendant  No.  24-25   (Qureshis),  Defendant  No.  6,7,  8   (Shaukat  heirs), <\/p>\n
    Defendant No. 27 (Sheirf Hasan Rubali), Defendant No.1, Defendant No. <\/p>\n
    2-5,   Plaintiff   1-4   (Shahadat   heirs),   Boman   Irani,   Percy   Chowdhary, <\/p>\n
    Saifuddin   Patel   (   as   confirming   parties)   and   Defendant   No.6,   all   the <\/p>\n
    aforesaid parties granted development rights in respect of the Suit Property <\/p>\n
    in favour of Defendant No.6. Defendant No.1 executed the Development <\/p>\n
    Agreement on behalf of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by <\/p>\n
    and under Power of Attorney dated 25th April, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
    18           Under   the   Development   Agreement   the   gross   sale   proceeds   to <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
    generate upon sale of the premises to be constructed in the new building <\/p>\n
    on   the   suit   land   is   bifurcated   in   the   manner   as   set   out   under   the <\/p>\n
    Development Agreement executed between:\n<\/p>\n
    i)           Defendant No.6.\n\n    ii)          First   Owners   (Premier   Iron   &   Metal   Industries):-  (Mohmd.   Jamil \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n<\/pre>\n
    Mohmd. Ismail Qureshi (Defendant No.24), Mohd. Aquil Mohmd. Ismail <\/p>\n
    Qureshi   (Defendant   No.25),   Mohmd.   Kafil   Mohmd.   Ismail   Qureshi <\/p>\n
    (Defendant No.26),\n<\/p>\n
    iii)         Second   Owners   (Shaukat   Branch):-  Mohd.   Rafique   Shaukat <\/p>\n
    Chaudhary,   Mohd.   Zubair   Shaukat   Chaudhary,   Abdul   Gani   Shaukat <\/p>\n
    Chaudhary, Sharif Hasan Rubakli,<\/p>\n
    iv)          Third   Owners   (Shahadat   Branch):-    Chaudhary   Abdul   Majid <\/p>\n
    Shahadat (Plaintiff No.1), Mohd. Farooque Shahadat Chaudhary (Plaintiff <\/p>\n
    No.2),   Mrs.   Gafurunnisa     Shahadat   Chaudhary   (Plaintiff   No.4),   Abdulla <\/p>\n
    Shahadat (Defendant No.1), Mrs. Kulsum Manzoor Khan (Defendant No.<\/p>\n
    2),   Mrs.   Saira   Afzal   Khan   (Defendant   No.3),   Mrs.   Shahida   Saifullah <\/p>\n
    Chaudhary (Defendant No.4), Mohd. Llyas Shahadat (Plaintiff No.3), Mrs. <\/p>\n
    Shabira Ayub Khan (Defendant No.5)<\/p>\n
    v)           Boman Irani (First Confirming Party), Sharfuddin A. Patel (Second <\/p>\n
    Confirming Party), Mr. Percy Choudhary (Third Confirming Party).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
    19           Defendant No.6 commenced construction and development on the <\/p>\n
    suit property as far back as in January, 2002.  In spite of being aware of the <\/p>\n
    redevelopment undertaken by Defendant No.6 the suit came to be filed on <\/p>\n
    December, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    20           The plans sanctioned by the authorities envisaged construction of 8 <\/p>\n
    residential buildings and 1 commercial complex.   Till the date of filing of <\/p>\n
    the present suit, Defendant No. 6 has completed construction of 5 buildings <\/p>\n
    (Wing   A   to   E)   and   building   G   and   H   were   under   construction.     The <\/p>\n
    Commercial Complex and one Residential Building i.e. Wing F are not yet <\/p>\n
    completed.\n<\/p>\n
    21           By and under and order dated 6th  May, 2004 passed by the Court <\/p>\n
    disposed   of   Notice   of   Motion   No.   3527   of   2002   along   with   Notice   of <\/p>\n
    Motion   No.   1922   of   2003   in   Suit   No.   1961   of   2003,   where   the   Court <\/p>\n
    permitted Defendant No. 6 to continue construction of G and H Buildings.\n<\/p>\n
    The Court restrained Defendant No.6 from creating third party rights in <\/p>\n
    respect of the unsold flats of Buildings G and H.\n<\/p>\n
    22           The aforesaid order was carried in appeal by Defendant No.6 being <\/p>\n
    Appeal No. 558 of 2004 in Notice of Motion No. 3527 of 2002 in Suit No. <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
    4007 of 2002,l whereby the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court by its <\/p>\n
    order dated 21st October, 2004 directed the Court Receiver to act as Court <\/p>\n
    Commissioner and report to the Court about the status of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
    The Court permitted Defendant No. 6 to complete construction of G and H <\/p>\n
    buildings but restrained creation of third party rights in respect thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    23           In the meantime following settlement took place in Suit No. 4007 of <\/p>\n
    2002:-\n<\/p>\n
                   Date                  Agreement                   Consideration\n                                \n    20th April, 2007             Registered   Conveyance  Rs.4,00,00,000\/- \n<\/pre>\n
                                 between Defendant No. 235  (Rupees   Four   Crores
\n                                 and Plaintiff No.1         Only)
\n    1st August, 2007             Registered   Conveyance  Rs.1,10,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                 between Defendant No. 235  (Rupees   One   Crore
\n                                 and Plaintiff No.2         Ten Lakhs Only)<\/p>\n
    28th September, 2007  However, in the meanwhile,
\n                          Plaintiff   No.4   (Widow)
\n                          expired<\/p>\n
    7th November, 2008           Consent Terms with Plaintiff  Rs.2,00,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                 No.3   and   Defendant   No.6  (Rupees   Two   Crores
\n                                 (includes   share   derived  only)
\n                                 from   Shahadat   and   his  +
\n                                 mother,   Plaintiff   No.4)  Flat   admeasuring   975
\n                                 taken   on   record   by   the  sq.ft.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 Hon’ble   Court   on   17th
\n                                 January, 2009
\n    28th December, 2007 Registered   Conveyance  Rs.35,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
                        between   Defendant   Nos.  (Rupees   Thirty   Five
\n                        2-5 in  favour  of Defendant  Lakhs) each. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        No.235   (includes   share
\n                        derived from Shahadat and
\n                        their mother, Plaintiff No.4)<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
    24           In view of death of Plaintiff  No.4, in  Suit No. 4007  of  2002, her <\/p>\n
    share in the Suit Property devolved as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
    1.06% (As per shares in Consent Terms)            2.08% (As claimed by the <\/p>\n
                                                      Plaintiffs)<\/p>\n
    As per Muslim Law of Inheritance, the estate of widow will devolve upon <\/p>\n
    the sons and daughters in the ratio of 2:1 as follows:<\/p>\n
\n\n    (As per shares in Consent Terms)                  (As claimed by the Plaintiffs)\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    3 sons                   0.21% each\n                                   ig                                0.41%\n\n    4 daughters              0.10% each                              0.20%\n                                 \n<\/pre>\n
    Since   one   of   the   son   (i.e.   Defendant   No.1)   pre-deceased   his   mother <\/p>\n
    (Plaintiff  No.4),  he  will   not get  any  share  in  his  mother’s  estate  as per <\/p>\n
    Muslim Law.\n<\/p>\n
    25           As explained above, by the contesting party, only rights of Plaintiff <\/p>\n
    No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 accruing to them through Plaintiff No.4 (Widow) is <\/p>\n
    outstanding.  Share of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 shall be 0.41% each <\/p>\n
    and therefore aggregating to 0.82%.\n<\/p>\n
                 Therefore, there is force in the contention raised that, the present <\/p>\n
    suit only survives to the extent of 0.82% share accruing to Plaintiff No.1 <\/p>\n
    and Plaintiff No.2 through their mother.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
    26           Appeal   No.   558   of   2004   and   Appeal   No.   572   of   2004,   filed   by <\/p>\n
    Defendant No.6 came up for final hearing before the Division Bench of this <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Court.  The Division Bench vide its order dated 17th January, 2009, <\/p>\n
    in   view   of   the   “subsequent   developments”   in   the   form   of   settlement <\/p>\n
    between the parties which were significant and was pleased to set aside the <\/p>\n
    interim order dated 6th May, 2004 and remitted the Notice of Motion No. <\/p>\n
    3527 of 2004 in Suit No. 4007 of 2002 and Notice of Motion No. 1922 of <\/p>\n
    2003 in Suit No. 1961 of 2003 for fresh consideration.  The interim order <\/p>\n
    of Court Receiver was continued till the disposal of the Notice of Motion as <\/p>\n
    a protection measure.  Defendant No. 6 was permitted to grant possession <\/p>\n
    to the 40 flat purchasers in Wing G and H on satisfying the Receiver that <\/p>\n
    they have bona fide agreements to sell the flats, substantial consideration <\/p>\n
    has been paid and that MCGM has granted occupation certificates for the <\/p>\n
    same flats.\n<\/p>\n
    27           All the Flats in Wing A, B, C, D and E are sold to flat purchasers and <\/p>\n
    the possession of the flats are handed over to such flat purchasers.  Wing <\/p>\n
    A,B, C, D and E are residential buildings, Wing G & H are also residential <\/p>\n
    buildings   and  the   construction   thereof   is   completed   and   the   occupation <\/p>\n
    certificate is also given.  Wing G and H totally comprises of 56 flats, out of <\/p>\n
    which 40 flats are sold and letter of allotment were issued accordingly by <\/p>\n
    Defendant   No.6   to   various   flat   purchasers   and   Defendant   No.   6   has <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
    received substantial consideration thereof.  However, possession to the flat <\/p>\n
    purchasers of these 40 flats as not yet permitted by the Court Receiver in <\/p>\n
    spite Defendant No.6 having satisfied the Court Receiver in respect of the <\/p>\n
    requirements as stated above of the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 17th <\/p>\n
    January, 2009,  the Court Receiver submitted its Report No. 267 of 2009, <\/p>\n
    dated   8th  September,   2009   to   the   Court   for   directions.     Wing   F   is   a <\/p>\n
    residential building, the construction whereof is yet to commence and one <\/p>\n
    more   commercial   building   thereof   is   proposed   to   be   constructed.     In <\/p>\n
    addition   to   the   buildings   to   be   constructed   on   the   suit   land,   there   are <\/p>\n
    uncompleted amenities and infrastructure also.\n<\/p>\n
    28           Defendant No.1 is entitled to sale proceeds as consideration under <\/p>\n
    the   Development   Agreement.     Till   date   Defendant   No.6   has   paid   an <\/p>\n
    aggregate sum of Rs.67,79,763\/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Seventy Nine <\/p>\n
    Thousand Seven Sixty Three only) towards consideration to the Shahadat <\/p>\n
    branch.  Out of the aforesaid sum, a sum of Rs.15,59,421\/- (Rupees Fifteen <\/p>\n
    Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty One only) was paid <\/p>\n
    by Defendant No. 6 to Defendant No.1 which has been deposited by him in <\/p>\n
    this Court and a further sum of Rs.52,20,342\/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs <\/p>\n
    Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Two only) has been deposited <\/p>\n
    by Defendant No. 6 in this Court on behalf of Shahadat branch.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
    29           On 9th  April, 2010, as there was no report submitted by the Court <\/p>\n
    Receiver pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench, this Court <\/p>\n
    has directed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “1     In view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the
\n                        matter,   specifically   in   paragraph   No.   (2)   (ii)(a)   read
\n                        with Paragraph No.5 of the Court Receiver’s report  dated  <\/p>\n
                        12th September, 2009, it is desirable that the  Court
\n                        Receiver  to  give detailed  report,  within 10 days, from
\n                        today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 2      The liberty is granted to the parties to appear before the
\n                        Court Receiver, on 12.04.2010 at 3.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
                 3      The matter be placed on board with additional report of <\/p>\n
                        the Court Receiver, on 22nd April, 2010, as the additional
\n                        report is necessary for passing the final order in Notice of
\n                        Motions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    30           The Court Receiver accordingly submitted the Additional Report No. <\/p>\n
    73 of 2010, dated 20th April, 2010, and prayed that:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “(a) As B.M.C. Has issued Occupation Certificate in respect of <\/p>\n
                 “G” and “H” wings of the building and the 19 Flat Purchasers
\n                 have paid full consideration to the Defendant No.6 as per list
\n                 being Exhibit “C”, the Court Receiver may be permitted to put
\n                 the said Flat Purchasers in possession of their respective flats as
\n                 agent of the Court Receiver upon executing the necessary Agency  <\/p>\n
                 Agreement   and   undertaking,   without   royalty   and   security   as
\n                 per order dated 17th January, 2009.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    31           It is relevant to note the following order of the Division Bench in <\/p>\n
    Notice of Motion No. 2708 of 2004 in Appeal No. 558 of 2004 in Notice of <\/p>\n
    Motion No. 3527 of 2002 in Suit No. 4007 of 2002 dated 21\/10\/2004:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
                        “Heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 2     The   notice   of   motion   is   returnable   on   14th  December,
\n                 2004.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 3      The learned motion Judge observed that construction has
\n                 proceeded considerably and it would not be proper now to stop
\n                 the construction activity.   He also observed that two buildings  <\/p>\n
                 consisting of five wings are complete and flats therein have been
\n                 sold.  The work now remains is in respect of G and H wings and
\n                 the commercial complex and in G and H wings also it is said
\n                 that some agreements have been entered into.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 4      Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration  <\/p>\n
                 and   the   aforesaid   observations   made   by   the   learned   motion
\n                 Judge, we are satisfied that the operation of the impugned order
\n                 deserves to be stayed and the following ad-interim order shall <\/p>\n
                 remain operative until further orders:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (i)    The   Court   Receiver   is   appointed   to   act   as  <\/p>\n
                               Court   Commissioner   for   reporting   to   this
\n                               Court the present status of the property in  <\/p>\n
                               dispute.     If   necessary,   the   Court
\n                               Commissioner may take the assistance and
\n                               services   of   the   structural   Engineer   and
\n                               Architect to assist him.  The report shall be  <\/p>\n
                               submitted   by   the   Court   Commissioner   as
\n                               early as possible and in no case later than
\n                               four   weeks   from   the   date   of   deposit   of
\n                               tentative expenses by the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (ii)   The appellant (defendant No.6) is permitted
\n                               to   complete   the   construction   of   G   and   H
\n                               wings   as   per   the   sanctioned   plans   only
\n                               without   any   alteration   or   modification.
\n                               However, the appellant shall not create any
\n                               third   party   right   or   interest   henceforth   in
\n                               the G and H wings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        19<\/span><\/p>\n
                       (iii)   The appellant (defendant No.6) is restrained
\n                               from   proceeding   with   any   further
\n                               construction   in   respect   of   the   commercial  <\/p>\n
                               complex.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (iv)    The   appellant   (defendant   No.6)   shall
\n                               furnish to the Court Commissioner the true
\n                               and   correct   copy   of   the   sanctioned   plants,
\n                               copies of agreements, if any, so far entered  <\/p>\n
                               into in respect of flats in G and H wings, the
\n                               copies   of   other     necessary   documents
\n                               necessary for completion of G and H wings
\n                               and   all   other   documents   that   may   be  <\/p>\n
                               required by the Court Commissioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (v)<\/p>\n
                               Liberty to the appellant (defendant No.6) to
\n                               apply   the   court   for   appropriate   direction  <\/p>\n
                               after   the   completion   of   construction   of   G
\n                               and H wings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (vi)    The appellant (defendant No.6) is directed  <\/p>\n
                               to   deposit   a   sum   of   Rs.25,000\/-   with   the
\n                               Court   Receiver   towards   tentative   expenses  <\/p>\n
                               within ten days from today.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    32           It is necessary to note first of all in above back-ground basic prayers <\/p>\n
    in these two suits which are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
    As per Suit No. 1961 of 2003-\n<\/p>\n
                 “a)   that   this   Hon’ble   Court   be   pleased   to   declare   that
\n                       purported Power of  Attorney  dated  26th  March, 1998
\n                       (Exhibit   “C”   hereto)   and   purported   writing   dated   1st
\n                       July,   1995   (Exhibit   “D”   hereto)   are   illegal,   null   and
\n                       void.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 b)    that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 23 or any of them or
\n                       any other Defendant who may be in the possession of  <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        20<\/span><\/p>\n
                       the alleged Power of Attorney dated 26th  March, 1998
\n                       Exhibit “C” hereto and the writing dated 1st July, 1995
\n                       Exhibit “D” hereto be ordered by this Hon’ble Court to  <\/p>\n
                       deliver   up   the   same   to   this   Hon’ble   Court   for
\n                       cancellation and the same be ordered and decreed to be  <\/p>\n
                       cancelled by this Hon’ble Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 c)    in the alternative it be declared that the said purported
\n                       writing (Exhibit “D”) hereto has not been acted upon  <\/p>\n
                       and was never intended to be acted upon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 d)    that   this   Hon’ble   Court   be   pleased   to   set   aside   the  <\/p>\n
                       consent decree passed on 15th  April, 1998 in Suit No.
\n                       1350   of   1980,   843   of   1985   and   3170   of   1985   and  <\/p>\n
                       restore the said suits to file.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 e)    This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that Agreement  <\/p>\n
                       dated 22nd January, 2002 purporting to be entered into
\n                       between   1st  Defendants   and   other   Defendants   being
\n                       Exhibit “E” hereto is a sham and bogus document and
\n                       the same be delivered up and cancelled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 g)    That it be declared that Plaintiff has 6.73 share or such
\n                       other percentage share as may be found in the entire
\n                       estate of late Shaukat Hasmulla including property at
\n                       Chakala   and   the   same   be   delivered   up   to   her   by  <\/p>\n
                       partitioning  the  same   by   metres  and   bounds  and   for
\n                       that   purpose   the   properties   and   estate   of   late   Mr.
\n                       Shaukat Hasmullah be administered  under the Order
\n                       and direction of this Hon’ble Court in accordance with
\n                       law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    based upon that the Plaintiffs have taken out Notice of Motion for interim <\/p>\n
    reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
    33           The prayers in Suit No. 4007 of 2002 are-\n\n                 a)    that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the consent  \n\n\n\n\n                                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>\n     nms3527.02                                        21<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
                       decree passed on 15th  April, 1998 in Suit Nos. 1350 of
\n                       1980, 843 of 1985 and 3170 of 1985 and restore the
\n                       said suits to file.\n<\/p>\n
                 b)    this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that Agreements  <\/p>\n
                       entered  into between Defendants and Defendant No. 6 in
\n                       respect of the suit property  are void, illegal and without
\n                       any effect in law and be ordered to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                 c)    that   the   6th  Defendants   by   themselves,   their   servants,
\n                       agents and persons claiming through or under them be
\n                       restrained by a permanent order and injunction of this  <\/p>\n
                       Hon’ble Court from in any manner directly or indirectly
\n                       entering   upon   the   suit   property   described   in   Scheduled  <\/p>\n
                       “A”,   A1     hereto   or   from   carrying   out   any   construction
\n                       thereon;\n<\/p>\n
                 cc)   That   this   Hon’ble   Court   be   pleased   to-   (added   by   the
\n                       Complainant in 2005)<\/p>\n
                       (i)     Declare that the Defendant Nos. 34 to 248 have no
\n                               right title or interest or any part or portion of the  <\/p>\n
                               suit property described in Exhibits A and A1 to the
\n                               Plaint or on any part or portion of the residential
\n                               and\/or   commercial   buildings   constructed\/   being
\n                               constructed thereon.\n<\/p>\n
                       (ii)    That   the   agreements   entered   into   between   the
\n                               Defendant   No.   6   on   the   one   hand   and   the
\n                               Defendant nos. 34 to 248 on the other hand are all <\/p>\n
                               illegal,   null   and   void   and   not   binding   upon   the
\n                               Plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
                       (iii) That the Defendant Nos. 34 to 248 be ordered and
\n                             decreed to hand over to the Plaintiffs quiet, vacant
\n                             and  peaceful  possession of  the premises of  which
\n                             possession is stated to have been given to the said
\n                             Defendant Nos. 34 to 248.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:31 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                     22<\/span><\/p>\n
                       (iv)   The Defendant Nos. 34 to 248 be restrained by a
\n                              perpetual   order   and   injunction   from   in   any
\n                              manner remaining upon and\/or entering any part  <\/p>\n
                              or portion of the suit property described in Exhibits
\n                              A and A1 hereto.\n<\/p>\n
                       (v)    That the Defendant Nos. 34 to 248 be restrained
\n                              by an order and  injunction from in any manner
\n                              dealing   with,   encumbering,   parting   with  <\/p>\n
                              possession,   including   any   third   parties,   including
\n                              by way of leave and license agreement\/ caretaker
\n                              agreements or otherwise creating third party rights
\n                              in respect of the premises or any part or portion  <\/p>\n
                              thereof   purportedly   purchased   by   the   said
\n                              Defendants   by   entering   into   agreements   with  <\/p>\n
                              Defendant No.6.\n<\/p>\n
                       (vi)   That it be declared  that all  IODs, Ccs and  other
\n                              permissions, NOC, sanctions and  licenses granted
\n                              by Defendant Nos. 249 and 250 for carrying out
\n                              and\/or in aid of development and\/or construction
\n                              on the suit properties described in Exhibits A and  <\/p>\n
                              A1 to the Plaint are all illegal, null and void and  <\/p>\n
                              not binding upon the Plaintiff and the Defendant
\n                              Nos.   249   and   250   be   ordered   and   directed   to
\n                              withdraw\/revoke\/cancel the same.\n<\/p>\n
                       (vii) That interim and ad-interim reliefs be granted in
\n                             terms of prayer clauses (cc) (iii) to (cc) (v) above.”\n<\/p>\n
    34           From the above prayer clauses itself it is very clear that the Plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    want, the Court to decide and declare the power of Attorney dated 26th <\/p>\n
    March, 1998 purported writing dated 1st July, 1995 and also prayed to set <\/p>\n
    aside the consent decree passed on 15th  April, 1998 in Suit No. 1350 of <\/p>\n
    1980, 843 of 1985  and 3170 of 1985.  The declaration is also sought with <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
    regard to the agreement dated 22nd January, 2002, purporting to be sham <\/p>\n
    and bogus document.  The declaration is also sought  that the Plaintiff has <\/p>\n
    6.73% share and\/or such other percentage share in the entire estate of late <\/p>\n
    Mr. Shaukat Hasmulla  and therefore, sought administration  of  the  same <\/p>\n
    also.  The relief of restrainment was also sought against Defendant No.32 <\/p>\n
    interfering   upon   the   suit   property   as   described   in   Schedule-Exhibit   “A”.\n<\/p>\n
    Importantly, such declaration itself such relief and for such declaration is <\/p>\n
    their   exists   those   detailed   executed   documents,   in   view   of   the   consent <\/p>\n
    terms of the year 1998.   The alleged writing is also of the 1st  July, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
    The   suit   is   for   the   year   2003,   basically   after   the   agreement   dated   22nd <\/p>\n
    January,   2002.     The   averments   so   raised   in   the   plaint   read   with   the <\/p>\n
    supporting   documents,   even   if   placed   on   record   unless   adjudicated   and <\/p>\n
    decided finally by leading supporting evidence, I am not inclined to accept <\/p>\n
    the case of the Plaintiffs based upon this averments so raised to grant ad-\n<\/p>\n
    interim reliefs as contended.\n<\/p>\n
    35           As per Suit No. 4007 of 2002:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                 The   multiple   prayer   clauses   are   made   for   similar   reliefs   revolving <\/p>\n
    around   the   same   consent   terms   dated   15th  April,   1998,   the   agreement <\/p>\n
    entered   into   by   Defendant   No.6   in   respect   of   the   suit   property.     The <\/p>\n
    declaration   with   regard   to   the   Defendant   No.34   to   248   is   added   by <\/p>\n
    amendment in the year 2005, read with further declaration that all IODs, <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                      24<\/span><\/p>\n
    Ccs, other permissions, NOC, sanctions and licenses granted by Defendant <\/p>\n
    No.249   and   250   for   carrying   out   and\/or   in   aid   of   development   and <\/p>\n
    construction on the suit properties are to declare the same as illegal, null <\/p>\n
    and void and not binding.  The existence of those documents are not at all <\/p>\n
    in   dispute.   The   prayers   are   made   to   declare   those   actions   and   the <\/p>\n
    documents   null   and   void.   Therefore,   if   the   existence   are   not   at   all   in <\/p>\n
    dispute and the prayers are to declare the said documents null and void <\/p>\n
    including all transactions based upon the same unless granted finally, there <\/p>\n
    is no case of interim relief, as prayed. Most of the parties  have  already <\/p>\n
    acted upon on the same.  The conduct of the parties and the delay on their <\/p>\n
    part in filing such suit and seeking declaration of such type of orders which <\/p>\n
    goes to the root of the documents. Therefore, unless decided by giving full <\/p>\n
    opportunity to both the parties, I am not inclined to accept the case of the <\/p>\n
    contesting   Plaintiffs   only,   as   some   of   the   plaintiffs   are   even   settled   the <\/p>\n
    matter pending these motions itself.\n<\/p>\n
    36           Assume for a moment that the case made out by the Plaintiffs with <\/p>\n
    regard to their shares, based upon the alleged misrepresentation and of <\/p>\n
    fraud, yet, in view of above facts and circumstances are quite nominal and <\/p>\n
    shall   be   subject   to   grant   in   the   suit   after   due   trial   only.   The   respective <\/p>\n
    shares and the claims based upon the same, even if so raised, just cannot <\/p>\n
    be  the   reason   to  overlook  the   existence   of   those   documents   as   referred <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                 25<\/span><\/p>\n
    above and the  conduct of the  parties at the  relevant time, by accepting <\/p>\n
    those terms and conditions of those documents actually participated and <\/p>\n
    acted upon.   The Apex Court in  M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & <\/p>\n
    Ors.,   AIR   2006   S.C.   3275,   has   considered   one   of   such   aspect,   which <\/p>\n
    according  to me is relevant to be noted for the present matter i.e. in a <\/p>\n
    partition suit the Court needs to consider the extent of plaintiffs shares in <\/p>\n
    the property.  As noted, at this prima facie stage, it is not possible for the <\/p>\n
    Court to decide the shares of the Plaintiffs, even if so agitated and as unless <\/p>\n
    the prayers so raised\/made  are decided finally, no case is  made out for <\/p>\n
    grant of reliefs so contended.\n<\/p>\n
    37           In  Anand Prasad Agarwalla Vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors., AIR  <\/p>\n
    2001,   S.C.   2367,   as   relied   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs referring to Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for <\/p>\n
    short, CPC), it is held by the Apex Court, that the Court cannot held mini <\/p>\n
    trial   at  the  stage   of   grant  of   temporary  injunction   and  examine   various <\/p>\n
    aspect of case.  This principle, in my view, supports the case of a contesting <\/p>\n
    Defendants in all respect, as basic reading of the prayers and the averments <\/p>\n
    so raised in the plaint, as well as, in the Notice of motion, itself shows that <\/p>\n
    there exists various registered documents\/ consent decrees and therefore, <\/p>\n
    the existences of the same, if not in dispute, and unless that is decided <\/p>\n
    finally in due trial, those prayer clauses itself are not sufficient to grant the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                 26<\/span><\/p>\n
    reliefs so prayed  by the Plaintiffs, at this stage of the Proceedings and to <\/p>\n
    halt the construction which has been proceeded pursuance to the orders <\/p>\n
    passed by this Court from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
    38           There is no serious dispute, which is clear from the record also the <\/p>\n
    first order dated 6th May, 2004 in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2004 in Suit <\/p>\n
    No.   4007   of   2004   and   order   dated   21st  October,   2004   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Division Bench of this Court in Notice of Motion No. 2708 of 2004 arising <\/p>\n
    out of the order in Motion No. 3527 of 2002 and as recorded above and the <\/p>\n
    work\/ construction of 2 buildings consisting  of 5 wings  even completed <\/p>\n
    and the flats have been sold.   The work in respect of “G” and “H” wings <\/p>\n
    and commercial complex are not completed and as some of the flats in “G”\n<\/p>\n
    and   “H”   wings,   some   agreements   have   been   entered   into,   the   Division <\/p>\n
    Bench   has   appointed   the   Court   Receiver   to   act   as   a   Commissioner   for <\/p>\n
    reporting the status of the property in dispute. Defendant No.6, has been <\/p>\n
    permitted to complete the construction of “G” and “H” wings as per the <\/p>\n
    sanctioned plan. However, directed that the Appellant should not create <\/p>\n
    any third party rights or interest. Defendant No.6 was also restrain from <\/p>\n
    proceeding further in respect of the construction of Commercial Complex.\n<\/p>\n
    As the Division Bench has also directed to Defendant No.6 to submit the <\/p>\n
    relevant documents, sanctioned plans with regard to the completion of “G”\n<\/p>\n
    and “H” wings.  The liberty was also granted to apply for appropriate order <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                          27<\/span><\/p>\n
    or directions after the completion of construction of “G” and “H” wings.\n<\/p>\n
    From   the   record,   it   is   clear   that   the   parties   acted   upon   the   same   and <\/p>\n
    proceeded   accordingly   except   above   there   was   no   any   direction   and\/or <\/p>\n
    restrainment order against the contesting Defendants.   It also means, the <\/p>\n
    Court Receiver has been appointed by the Division Bench to supervise the <\/p>\n
    construction itself.   The statement is, as recorded that the construction is <\/p>\n
    completed of “G” and “H” wings, except Commercial property.\n<\/p>\n
    39<\/span><\/p>\n
                 It is relevant to note the order passed by the Division Bench, on 17th <\/p>\n
    January, 2009, in Appeal No. 558 of 2004 in Notice of Motion No. 3527 of <\/p>\n
    2002 in Suit No. 4007 of 2002 which is reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “1     This appeal arises out of the order dated 6.5.2004 passed
\n                 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in notice of motion no.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 3527 of 2002 in Suit No.4007 of 2002.  It is common ground
\n                 before us that after the order dated 6.5.2004 was made by the
\n                 learned Single Judge, certain developments have taken place in
\n                 that suit in the form of settlement being reached by some of the  <\/p>\n
                 Plaintiffs with the contesting defendants who are appellants in
\n                 this appeal, and death of one of the Plaintiffs as also transfer of
\n                 interest by some of the plaintiffs.  These developments definitely
\n                 have bearing on the type of interim order that should operate
\n                 during the pendency of the suit.  The appellant has also placed  <\/p>\n
                 on record consent terms arrived at between the appellant and
\n                 the respondent no.3 who was plaintiff no.3 in the suit, they are
\n                 taken   on   record   and   marked   “X”   for   identification.     In   our
\n                 opinion,  in  view   of   these  subsequent  developments  which  are
\n                 significant   so   far   as   the   type   of   interim   order   that   should
\n                 operate during the pendency of the suit is concerned, requires
\n                 re-consideration of notice of motion which has been decided by
\n                 the learned Single Judge.   It is also common ground that this
\n                 Court   has   made   an   ad-interim   order   in   this   appeal   dated
\n                 21.10.2004 which is presently operating.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                           28<\/span><\/p>\n
                 2     Taking   overall   view   of   the   matter,   therefore,   in   our
\n                 opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (I)    The order dated 6.5.2004 passed by the learned Single
\n                 Judge of this Court in notice of motion no. 3527 of 2002 in suit
\n                 no.4007 of 2002 is set aside.  That notice of motion is remitted
\n                 back  to  the  learned  Single Judge  for  fresh  consideration  and  <\/p>\n
                 decision.  The appellant shall file an affidavit in that notice of
\n                 motion within a period of two weeks from today bringing on
\n                 record   subsequent   developments   that,   according   to   the
\n                 appellant, have taken place during the pendency of the appeal.
\n                 Office shall also place on record of the learned Single Judge the  <\/p>\n
                 consent terms at “X” for the consideration of the learned Single
\n                 Judge.  During the pendency of the notice of motion before the <\/p>\n
                 learned   Single   Judge,   ad-interim   order   dated   21.10.2004
\n                 passed in notice of motion no. 2708 of 2004   in this appeal,
\n                 shall continue to operate with the following additions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (i)    The  Receiver  of  this  Court will  continue to  function as
\n                 before the ad-interim order dated 21.10.2004.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (II) We have been informed that in Wing “G” and Wing “H”
\n                 there   are   total   56   flats.     According   to   the   learned   Counsel
\n                 appearing   for   appellant,   out   of   56   flats,   40   flats   have   been
\n                 agreed   to   be   sold   and   substantial   consideration   has   been  <\/p>\n
                 received   from   the   purchasers.     According   to   the   parties,
\n                 therefore, there is no reason as to why possession of those 40
\n                 flats cannot be given to the purchasers.   This position is not
\n                 disputed before us presently.   However, in our opinion, it will
\n                 not   be   appropriate   to   make   blanket   order   for   delivery   of  <\/p>\n
                 possession.  In our opinion, the following order would meet the
\n                 ends of justice:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (a) The appellant and the flat purchasers may produce before
\n                 the   Receiver   material   to   establish   that   full   consideration   has
\n                 been received  by the defendant no.6 from the flat purchasers
\n                 and proper agreements has been entered into in their favour in
\n                 respect of  the flats and  also the documents to show that the
\n                 Corporation has granted occupation certificate for occupation of  <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        29<\/span><\/p>\n
                 those flats.  In short, the defendant no.6 and the flat purchasers
\n                 have to satisfy the Receiver that they are bonafide agreements to
\n                 sell   the   flats   and   substantial   consideration   has   been   paid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Possession of the flats may be given to such purchasers as agent
\n                 of the Receiver on usual terms and conditions except royalty and  <\/p>\n
                 security.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         This order will not come in the way of the Corporation
\n                 granting occupation certificate, if otherwise, the defendant no.6
\n                 is entitled to the occupation certificate in accordance with law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (III) This order will operate during the pendency of the notice
\n                 of motion before the learned Single Judge, with liberty to the
\n                 parties to apply for modification of the same, in case there are  <\/p>\n
                 any   subsequent   development.     It   is   made   clear   that   the
\n                 occupation of 40 flats would be as the agents of the Receiver <\/p>\n
                 without royalty and security and they will have to abide by all
\n                 other conditions as agents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (IV) The learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the
\n                 notice of motion as expeditiously as possible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    40           The Division Bench has noted the subsequent events\/ developments <\/p>\n
    pending the Notice of Motion including the consent terms entered into by <\/p>\n
    some of the Plaintiffs and after recording the same, ordered to dispose of <\/p>\n
    the   motion,   as   expeditiously   as   possible,   afresh.     By   putting\/filing <\/p>\n
    additional contentions\/additions here again the Court Receiver as already <\/p>\n
    appointed, directed to continue before the ad-interim order in the Appeal <\/p>\n
    dated 21\/10\/2004.   The Division Bench has even ordered and observed <\/p>\n
    “there is no reason as to why the possession of those 40 flats cannot be <\/p>\n
    given to the purchasers, by recording that in Wings “G” and “H” there are <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                   30<\/span><\/p>\n
    56   flats   and   out   of   that   40   flats   agreed   to   be   sold   and   substantial <\/p>\n
    consideration   has   been   received   by   the   Developers.   The   contention   was <\/p>\n
    added that the Appellant and the Flat purchasers to produced necessary <\/p>\n
    documents   to   establish   the   respective   rights   and   claims,   apart   from <\/p>\n
    occupation   certificate   for   occupation   of   those   flats.     It   is   specifically <\/p>\n
    observed that “possession of the flats may be given to such purchasers as <\/p>\n
    agent of the Receiver on usual terms and conditions  except royalty and <\/p>\n
    security.”     The   liberty   was   also   granted   to   the   parties   to   apply   for <\/p>\n
    modification of this order.\n<\/p>\n
    41           The Court Receiver  Report No. 267 of  2009   in  Suit No. 4007 of <\/p>\n
    2002,     dated   8th  September,   2009,   submitted   by   the   Court   Receiver   for <\/p>\n
    appropriate   order   basically   with   regard   to   the   allotment   of   40   flats   by <\/p>\n
    treating the same as valid agreements under the Maharashtra Ownership <\/p>\n
    Flats   (Regulations   of   the   Promotion   of   Construction,   Sale,   Management <\/p>\n
    and Transfer) Act, 1963(for short, “the MOF Act”).\n<\/p>\n
    42           It is necessary here to note the earlier Court Receiver’s Report of the <\/p>\n
    year 2004 dated 23rd June, 2004,  as the Court Receiver was appointed by <\/p>\n
    an order dated 6th May, 2004 passed in Notice of Motion No. 270 of 2004 <\/p>\n
    in Suit No. 4007 of 2004, the said report reflects that the representative of <\/p>\n
    the Court Receiver visited the suit property and even made inventory of the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                          31<\/span><\/p>\n
    flats   sold   and   the   construction   and   the   details   were   submitted   in   the <\/p>\n
    Exhibit A and B to the report covering the Names of the flat purchaser, total <\/p>\n
    consideration   paid,   the   date   of   possession   and   the   various   remarks <\/p>\n
    referring to the flats, the allotment letter and the date.  The allotment letter <\/p>\n
    ranges   for   the   period   from   21\/06\/2002   up   to   05\/06\/2003   of   about   40 <\/p>\n
    flats.\n<\/p>\n
    43           It   is   necessary   to   note   the   last   additional   report   dated   20th  April, <\/p>\n
    2010 submitted  by the  Court  Receiver  pursuance  to  the  order  dated 9th <\/p>\n
    April, 2010 passed by this Court, in view of Division Bench order dated 17 th <\/p>\n
    January, 2009 basically paragraph No.2 II (a) read with paragraph No.5 of <\/p>\n
    the Court Receivers report dated 8th September, 2009, there is no reference <\/p>\n
    made about the earlier report dated 23rd June, 2004 and basically details of <\/p>\n
    the respective flats and the date of allotment\/ letters and the consideration <\/p>\n
    so paid. However, it is observed by referring to annexure “C” as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “6.    Upon considering the letters dated 29th  July, 2009 and
\n                        12th  April, 2010 of Advocate for Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2,
\n                        and  submission dated   12th  April, 2010  of  Advocate for  <\/p>\n
                        Defendant No.15 and  Annexure “C” of submission dated
\n                        15th  April, 2010 of Defendant No.6 and oral submission
\n                        of Advocate for some of the Flat purchasers recorded in
\n                        metting note dated 16th April, 2010, the Court Receiver is
\n                        of   opinion   that   19   Flats   Purchasers   have   letter   of
\n                        allotment\/Agreements   and   have   paid   full   consideration
\n                        to Defendant No.6 as per the receipt filed in the office of
\n                        the   Court   Receiver.    Hereto   annexed   and   marked   as
\n                        Exhibit “E” (Colly)  are the copies of the aforesaid letters
\n                        dated 29th  July, 2009, 12th  April, 2010 and 15th  April, <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
                        2010   and  Exhibit   “F”   (Colly.)  are   the   copies   of   the
\n                        Minutes of Meeting dated 12th April, 2010 and 16th April,
\n                        2010.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 7.     Considering all the submissions of Advocate for parties as  <\/p>\n
                        well as Advocate for Flat Purchasers i.e. Jalan Family, 19
\n                        flat purchasers as per list being Exhibit “C” to this report
\n                        may be considered having letter of allotment\/ agreement
\n                        and have paid full consideration and possession of Flats  <\/p>\n
                        may   be   given   to   such   Flat   Purchasers   as   agent   of   the
\n                        Court   Receiver   on   usual   terms   and   condition   without
\n                        royalty   and   security   as   per   order   dated   17th  January,
\n                        2009.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    44<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Though   reference   was   made   of   34   flat   purchasers,   yet   prayer   is <\/p>\n
    sought only for 19 flat purchasers.  In no order the Court Receiver has been <\/p>\n
    directed to decide the validity of these documents.  The order was to assist\/ <\/p>\n
    to  verify the  proceedings  with  regard to  the  details   of   the  purchaser   of <\/p>\n
    respective flats, so that the appropriate order of giving possession, subject <\/p>\n
    to   existing   Agency   Agreement   and   undertaking   without   royalty   and <\/p>\n
    security, can be passed by the Court.   There was no opinion sought from <\/p>\n
    the Receiver to decide and to take decision as prayed in this report.   The <\/p>\n
    important  facet   in   such  matters,   which   is   clear   from  the   orders   already <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   Court   from   time   to   time,   is   to   verify   the   bonafide <\/p>\n
    transactions\/ Agreements pending the proceedings at that time.\n<\/p>\n
    45           The   material   so   placed   on   record   with   regard   to   40   flats,   the <\/p>\n
    purchasers   importantly   covering   the   letter   of   allotments   read   with <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                      33<\/span><\/p>\n
    respective consideration and the substantial amount so paid and deposited <\/p>\n
    as further supported by the Zoroastrian Co-operative Bank Limited and as <\/p>\n
    was already placed on record by an affidavit dated 14th January, 2004, 25th <\/p>\n
    February, 2004 of Defendant No. 34, Defendant No.6, in Notice of Motion <\/p>\n
    No. 3527 of 2002 in Suit No. 4007 of 2002, just cannot be overlooked even <\/p>\n
    to consider the case in view of order so passed by the Division Bench.  In <\/p>\n
    absence of any restrainment order, it is quite natural that the concerned <\/p>\n
    parties proceeded to complete the project, as early as possible.   It is also <\/p>\n
    natural   that   pending   such   litigation,   some   parties   may   make   payment <\/p>\n
    subsequently.   As recorded, some of the parties have paid the substantial <\/p>\n
    amount\/   consideration   based   upon   the   letter   of   allotments   which   is <\/p>\n
    recorded above ranges from the year 2002 to 2003.  It means, even prior to <\/p>\n
    the order passed on 6th May, 2004 and even if, there are transactions and <\/p>\n
    the rights have been created subsequently, still in my view,  in absence of <\/p>\n
    any restrainment order those transactions, just cannot be overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
    46           In   the   construction\/   development   of   property   transactions,   it   is <\/p>\n
    possible that the parties may enter into oral transactions of the respective <\/p>\n
    flats.  There is no bar. However, appropriate registration and execution of <\/p>\n
    documents subsequently, as per the requirements of law, as relevant, just <\/p>\n
    cannot   be   the   reason   to   deny   such   purchasers   their   rights   to   claim   the <\/p>\n
    possession   of   the   respective   flats   from   the   builder\/developer   as   agreed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                     34<\/span><\/p>\n
    The party like the Plaintiffs, cannot raised such objection to deny the rights <\/p>\n
    and   obligations   so   created   by   the   parties   by   executing   the   agreements <\/p>\n
    which reflected firstly in letter of allotment and secondly by payment of <\/p>\n
    respective consideration which may not be 100% because of pendency of <\/p>\n
    the litigations.  In my view, the letter of allotment read with consideration <\/p>\n
    paid at the relevant time and as not denied by the parties, unless denied <\/p>\n
    and disputes the same, no third person\/ party can object. Even if objected <\/p>\n
    unless decided in their favour, those documents\/ agreements are sufficient <\/p>\n
    to   consider,   at   this   stage   to   grant   possession   of   the   flats   to   the   flat <\/p>\n
    purchasers.\n<\/p>\n
    47           The list of 46 flat purchasers and their respective payments is a part <\/p>\n
    of record.  The Receiver, by giving his opinion, restricted only to the 19 flat <\/p>\n
    purchasers, which in my view, is not correct.  The Plaintiffs suit, as well as, <\/p>\n
    Notice of Motions and the orders passed thereon which are modified from <\/p>\n
    time to time, and the pendency of hearing, that itself cannot be the reason <\/p>\n
    not to deal with handing over the possession of such purchasers.  It is not <\/p>\n
    in the interest of anybody that such project be halted basically when the <\/p>\n
    shortage   of   accommodation   is   at   large,   in   the   city.     The   Court   has <\/p>\n
    appointed the Court Receiver to supervise the construction and which has <\/p>\n
    been going on.  This also, in my view, safeguards the interest of all for the <\/p>\n
    time being.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                35<\/span><\/p>\n
    48           It is very much necessary to note here that the Builder\/Contractor\/ <\/p>\n
    Promoter, as well as, the respective members\/ purchasers of the Flats, are <\/p>\n
    bound by their obligations, as well as their rights.  The aspect of registered <\/p>\n
    covenants between the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 with Defendant No. 235 dated <\/p>\n
    20th August, 2007, dated 11th August, 2007, the consent terms with Plaintiff <\/p>\n
    No. 3, Defendant No.6, dated 7th November, 2008, the registered covenant <\/p>\n
    between Defendant No.1 and 5, in favour of Defendant No. 235 are also <\/p>\n
    subsequent relevant factor, which goes against the Plaintiffs and such other <\/p>\n
    supporting Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    49           Even if, there are allegations made about non compliance of various <\/p>\n
    purchase,   non   performance   of   obligations,   breach   of   trust, <\/p>\n
    misrepresentation, fraud and all these facets need detailed inquiry.   The <\/p>\n
    internal dispute so raised between the family members, by the Plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    who have a very nominal shares in the property as recorded above, cannot <\/p>\n
    be adjudicated finally at this interim stage itself.   It is settled that if it is <\/p>\n
    difficult to partition the property, the alternative remedy is to compensate <\/p>\n
    such   person   and\/or   owner   of   the   property   by   paying   the   market   rate <\/p>\n
    compensation.   The   parties   based   upon   the   various   consent   terms, <\/p>\n
    agreements and registered documents have constructed various wings on <\/p>\n
    the suit property and now occupied by various other purchasers also. The <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                          36<\/span><\/p>\n
    total area of the plot\/ property even if taken note of, have already been <\/p>\n
    developed\/constructed and in occupation of large number of occupants\/ <\/p>\n
    members who have also formed the society, even if there are allegations of <\/p>\n
    breaches of various terms and conditions including of provisions of law and <\/p>\n
    based upon which the contesting Plaintiffs want to re-agitate and re-open <\/p>\n
    the whole transactions and by filing such suit after such long time\/ period, <\/p>\n
    therefore, the  conduct of the parties, in my view, is also relevant factor <\/p>\n
    which goes against the contesting plaintiffs\/ Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    50           After   the   death   of   original   party,   the   legal   heirs   now   want   to   re-\n<\/p>\n
    agitate and re-open the issue\/ transaction. Some of the plaintiffs agitated <\/p>\n
    the issue of fraud\/ misappropriation pending the litigation, some of the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs have  settled the matter though they raised such allegations by <\/p>\n
    filing the suit at initial stage.   The internal dispute, even if any, of family <\/p>\n
    members   by   considering   the   developments   of   the   property   as   recorded <\/p>\n
    above and the fact that the respective shares of the concerned plaintiffs are <\/p>\n
    quite less in proportion, I see, there is no reason to halt the project.  The <\/p>\n
    basic elements of balance of convenience, equity, irreparable injury goes <\/p>\n
    against the Plaintiffs but supporting the case and submission of contesting <\/p>\n
    Defendants   and   the   purchasers\/   members.     The   conduct   and   the   delay <\/p>\n
    aspect,   in   the   present   facts   and   circumstances,   also   goes   against   the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs.  The monitory aspect, as recorded, is also relevant factor, as the <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                   37<\/span><\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs can be compensated, if they made out their case, after due trial.\n<\/p>\n
    51           It is relevant to note that the matter was also adjourned for various <\/p>\n
    occasions   for   the   settlement,   in   view   of   above,   but   it   could   not   be <\/p>\n
    materialized.  It will be in the interest of both the parties that such matters <\/p>\n
    be settled and all should co-operate to complete the project.\n<\/p>\n
    52<\/span><\/p>\n
                 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the concerned Defendants, <\/p>\n
    on instructions, even submitted that they are ready and willing to deposit <\/p>\n
    the monitory part of considering the share of the respective plaintiffs, if <\/p>\n
    any.  He also submitted that there is no question of continuing the Receiver <\/p>\n
    in view of subsequent development.  However, I am of the view that, since <\/p>\n
    beginning the Development and Construction on the plot in question, has <\/p>\n
    been under the supervision of the Court Receiver\/ Commissioner, and it is <\/p>\n
    accordingly proceeded further till this date.  Therefore, there is no reason <\/p>\n
    that it should not be continued till the decision of the suit. Both the suits <\/p>\n
    are expedited. In view of this, the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
                                             O R D E R<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 a)    The Court Receiver, as appointed for only supervision of  <\/p>\n
                       the Development\/ construction as Commissioner on the  <\/p>\n
                       suit property  to continue till the decision of  the suits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                        38<\/span><\/p>\n
                      The Receiver shall not interfere and obstruct the day to  <\/p>\n
                      day constructions and the affairs of the maintenance of  <\/p>\n
                      the Buildings and\/or as of the society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 b)   The Court Receiver’s Report No. 73 of 2001 is allowed  <\/p>\n
                      subject to following modification:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      a)      The   Court   Receiver   is   directed   to   give   the  <\/p>\n
                      possession of the flat to the flat purchasers as agent of  <\/p>\n
                      the   Court   Receiver   by   executing   the   necessary   Agency <\/p>\n
                      Agreement and without royalty and security as per the  <\/p>\n
                      list Exhibit “C” i.e. 46 flat purchasers with all amenities,  <\/p>\n
                      car parking space allotted to the flats, if any. It is made  <\/p>\n
                      clear that those 46 flat purchasers shall not create any  <\/p>\n
                      third   party   rights   or   interest   in   the   property   without <\/p>\n
                      leave of the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 c)   The   Builder\/Promoter,   the   respective   Defendants  <\/p>\n
                      maintained   the   Accounts   as   already   directed   and  <\/p>\n
                      submitted   the   same   to   the   Court   Receiver   for   every   6 <\/p>\n
                      months,     till   the   disposal   of   the   suits.   The   respective  <\/p>\n
                      rights and obligations of the parties  including providing <\/p>\n
                      necessary   amenities   to   continue   as   per   the   agreement  <\/p>\n
                      and as per the law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                       39<\/span><\/p>\n
                 d)   The   liberty   is   granted   to   the   concerned   Developer\/  <\/p>\n
                      parties\/ Defendants to sought leave\/ permission\/ order  <\/p>\n
                      from   the   Court,   if   they   wish   to   develop   remaining  <\/p>\n
                      commercial complex and residential building “F” on the  <\/p>\n
                      suit property including the car parking space attached to  <\/p>\n
                      the flats, if  any.   It is made clear that the remaining  <\/p>\n
                      commercial   complex   and   residential   buildings,   to   be  <\/p>\n
                      constructed,   subject   to   sanction   and   permission   in  <\/p>\n
                      accordance with law; and no physical possession should  <\/p>\n
                      be given to any third person without leave of the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 e)   It is made clear that no third party right\/ interest will  <\/p>\n
                      be   created   on   10%   of   this   undeveloped   commercial  <\/p>\n
                      complex\/ Residential Building (F) without the leave of  <\/p>\n
                      the   Court,   Defendant   No.6   to   submit   the   map   to   the  <\/p>\n
                      Receiver   de-marketing   10%   of   the   area   as   observed <\/p>\n
                      above, within four months, with due notice to concerned  <\/p>\n
                      Plaintiffs\/ Defendants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 f)   In   view   of   above,   both   the   Notice   of   Motions   are  <\/p>\n
                      accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 g)   Both   the   Court   Receiver’s   Report   are   also   disposed   of,  <\/p>\n
                      accordingly. No costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>
\n     nms3527.02                                      40<\/span><\/p>\n
                 h)   It is made clear that any construction is subject to the  <\/p>\n
                      suits decision. All the parties to proceed in accordance  <\/p>\n
                      with law with regard to the documentations including  <\/p>\n
                      registration, if any.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 i)   The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   Plaintiffs   seeks  <\/p>\n
                      stay of this order. Now as the order is passed to hand  <\/p>\n
                      over   possession   and   permitted   construction   of  <\/p>\n
                      commercial wings and therefore, I am inclined to stay  <\/p>\n
                      the effect and operation of this order for six weeks only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:55:32 :::<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta nms3527.02 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3527 OF 2002 IN SUIT NO. 4007 OF 2002 ALONG WITH COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":8290,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010"},"wordCount":8290,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010","name":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & ... vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T10:51:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chaudhary-abdul-majid-shahadat-vs-smt-shenaz-abdulla-shahadat-ors-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat & … vs Smt. Shenaz Abdulla Shahadat & Ors on 5 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}