1. The Plaintiff has instituted the captioned suit on 14th June 2021 seeking a array of reliefs, inter alia, a declaration that he holds a 1/18th undivided share, right, title, and interest in the estate of his maternal grandfather, late Mr. Nanalal Ramji Trivedi ("late Mr. Nanalal"), who passed away on 25th March 1984, and a 1/16th undivided share, right, title, and interest in the estate of his maternal grandmother, late Mrs. Godavari Nanalal Trivedi ("late Mrs. Godavari"), who passed away on 6th December 2019, together with partition by metes and bounds of such estate, the details whereof are set out in Exhibit "Y" to the plaint. The captioned suit further seeks an order directing Defendant no. 1 to render accounts of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, of which both, late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari were partners, so as to enable their respective shares therein, to be duly ascertained. Additionally, the captioned suit seeks an order directing original Defendant no. 10 to pay the monies alleged to be owed to the estate of late Mrs. Godavari towards the assignment of her share in the property at Kandivali (more particularly described at Sr. no. 3 of Exhibit "Y" to the plaint), and in the event of default, cancellation of the said assignment in favour of original Defendant no. 10 on the ground of failure of consideration. Lastly, the captioned suit seeks the setting aside of the registered Deed of Conveyance dated 6th March 2017, executed by the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders in favour of original Defendant no. 11 Society, pursuant to the Consent Terms dated 24th December 1999 executed between the parties and filed in Suit no. 2471 of 1984, in pursuance whereof, the said suit stood disposed of.

2. The estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari which the Plaintiff seeks to administer is set out in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint and it comprises the following items:

                   (i) Benefits of 24 flats and 11 shops situated in Ganesh Building, now Kandivali Gajanan Co-Operative Housing Society Limited – original Defendant no. 11 situated at Mathurdas Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai 400067 (“Ganesh Niwas Property”);

                   (ii) Flat nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 204, 601, 601, 603 and 604 situated in the Ganesh Niwas Property;

                   (iii) 1/9th share of late Mrs. Godavari in the 16% share of late Mr. Nanalal in the property of the partnership of M/s. Amratlal & Co. being land admeasuring 15370 sq. mtrs. at Kandivali (“property at Kandivali”) under a Deed of Assignment dated 25th October 2016 executed between the late Mrs. Godavari and Ami Corporation through its Sole Proprietor, original Defendant no. 10;

                   (iv) Gold, Silver, Jewellery, Fixed Deposits, Bank balances, and various other financial investments;

                   (v) Sum of Rs. 82,00,000/- gifted by late Mrs. Godavari to Defendant no. 1 vide cheque.

3. The Applicant/Plaintiff has taken out the present Interim Application seeking, inter alia, an array of reliefs. First, he seeks disclosure of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari, together with details of all flats and shops sold and/or unsold in the Ganesh Niwas Property as on the date of demise of late Mr. Nanalal, and the sale consideration received thereunder, as also various disclosures in respect of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders from 1st March 1981 onwards, including details of sales effected in the Ganesh Niwas Property, so as to enable ascertainment of the respective shares of the estates of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari in the said partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders. Second, he seeks injunctive reliefs restraining the Defendants from selling, alienating, encumbering, or creating third-party rights or interests in the estate set out in Exhibit "Y" to the plaint and as may be disclosed by the Defendants on oath. Third, he seeks disclosures from original Defendant no. 10 of all writings executed with late Mrs. Godavari in respect of the property at Kandivali, including details of the consideration payable to her under the Deed of Assignment dated 25th October 2016 executed by her, together with a direction to original Defendant no. 10 to deposit an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff's 1/16th share in the outstanding amount due and payable thereunder. Fourth, he seeks a disclosure order against original Defendant no. 11 Society in respect of the Ganesh Niwas Property, requiring it to furnish details of shares and/or share certificates pertaining to Flat nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 204, 601, 602, 603, and 604 situated therein. Lastly, the present Interim Application seeks the appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, in respect of the entire estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari.

4. At this stage itself, it would be profitable to note that original Defendant no. 10 – Sole Proprietor of Ami Corporation, has passed away in September 2024 and pursuant thereto, his name was deleted from the array of parties in the captioned suit and in his place, his legal heirs and representatives have since been impleaded as Defendant nos. 10(A) and 10(B). Thereafter, Defendant no. 6 has also passed away in June 2025 and since he died issueless (with his wife, predeceasing him in 2003) and all his other siblings are already impleaded as party Defendants herein, his name came to be deleted as Defendant no. 6 and as a result, all subsequent Defendants were re-numbered. For example, original Defendant no. 7 became Defendant no. 6, original Defendant no. 8 became Defendant no. 7 and so on. As a result, original Defendant nos. 10(A) and 10(B) are now, Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B) whilst original Defendant no. 11 Society is now, Defendant no. 10 Society. Owing to this re-numbering of some of the Defendants, in several affidavits, there is some confusion in the identification of the Defendants.

5. Late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari were survived by 8 children — 5 sons, Kantilal, Kishore, Yashwant, Jitendra, and Vishnu, and 3 daughters, Bharti, Pravina, and Bhanu. Of these, 2 sons (late Kantilal and late Kishore) and 1 daughter (late Bharti) have since, passed away. The Plaintiff and his sister Bhavna, Defendant no. 8 herein are the children of late Bharti, who passed away on 13th May 1996, and it is through late Bharti, that the Plaintiff derives and claims his share in the estate of his maternal grandparents. Save and except Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B), who are the heirs and legal representatives of the proprietor of Ami Corporation, and original Defendant no. 10 Society, which is the owner of the Ganesh Niwas Property, all the remaining Defendants are either children of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari or their respective heirs and legal representatives, and are therefore, members of the Trivedi family.

FACTS IN BRIEF

6. A brief conspectus of the facts, relevant to the present Interim Application is set out hereinbelow:

                   a) On 25th March 1984, late Mr. Nanalal died intestate leaving behind his widow, late Mrs. Godavari and 5 sons, (Defendant nos. 1, 4, 5 and late Kantilal and late Kishore) and 3 daughters, (Defendant nos. 6, 7 and late Bharti);

                   b) Testamentary Petition no. 570 of 1987 came to be filed by Defendant nos. 1 and 4 seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal, which came to be granted by this Court, vide order dated 7th September 1998. Admittedly, the Schedule of Assets in respect of the which Letters of Administration have been granted includes only the movable property of late Mr. Nanalal and there is no mention of any immovable property (stated to have been owned by him) therein;

                   c) The dispute in the present proceedings essentially revolves around two immovable properties, namely the Ganesh Niwas Property and the property at Kandivali.

                   Ganesh Niwas Property

                   d) The Ganesh Niwas Property was originally owned by late Mr. Nanalal, late Mrs. Godavari, and their son. late Kishore (father of Defendant nos. 2 and 3 herein). The said property was thereafter redeveloped by the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, in which all three aforementioned persons were partners at the time. The redevelopment is stated to have commenced sometime around 1982, with the building having been completed sometime around 1986. Upon redevelopment, the building comprises a ground floor and six upper floors, with four flats on each floor, aggregating 24 flats in all.

                   e) The Defendants contend that late Mr. Nanalal treated and included the Ganesh Niwas Property as an asset of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, which position is now disputed by the Plaintiff. In the captioned suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the children of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari, being his uncles and aunts, have fraudulently procured agreements in their favour from the said partnership firm, by virtue of which they took possession of certain flats in the Ganesh Niwas Property. In this manner, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are illegally occupying 9 flats out of the 24 flats in the Ganesh Niwas Property, being Flat nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 204, 601, 602, 603, and 604. The Plaintiff further asserts that only two erstwhile tenants of the original Ganesh Building were entitled to new flats upon redevelopment of the Ganesh Niwas Property. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that such agreements were validly executed in their favour by the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders as far back as 1982-83, during the lifetime of late Mr. Nanalal, on the ground that they were previously occupying rooms/flats in the original Ganesh Building and were, upon redevelopment, rightly placed in possession of the new flats in the Ganesh Niwas Property. It is not in dispute that the remaining 13 flats and 11 shops in the redeveloped Ganesh Niwas Property have been sold to third-party purchasers at the relevant time. These transactions are not disputed by the Plaintiff.

                   f) Subsequently, the Ganesh Niwas Property has also been conveyed to Defendant no. 10 Society, by way of a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 6th March 2017, bearing serial no. BLR3/3180/2017, executed by the then partners of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, namely late Mrs. Godavari, Defendant no. 1, and late Kishore.

                   Property at Kandivali

                   g) It is not in dispute that late Mr. Nanalal was a partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Amratlal & Co., holding a 16% share in its profits and losses, and that the property at Kandivali admittedly belonged to the said partnership firm.

                   h) Upon the demise of late Mr. Nanalal, one of his sons, Defendant no. 4 herein, instituted Suit no. 2471 of 1984 seeking dissolution of the partnership firm of M/s. Amratlal & Co. and determination of late Mr. Nanalal's 16% share therein. The said suit was ultimately settled and disposed of by an order dated 24th December 1999, in terms of Consent Terms of even date duly executed by all the parties thereto, whereunder late Mr. Nanalal's said 16% share was crystallized and divided equally between his widow, late Mrs. Godavari, and their 8 children. Since late Bharti, had already passed away on 13th May 1996, Plaintiff and Defendant no. 8 were impleaded in Suit no. 2471 of 1984 as Defendant nos. 12(a) and 12(b) therein.

                   i) Consequently, each of the nine persons/parties became entitled to a 1/9th share of the 16% share of late Mr. Nanalal in the property at Kandivali belonging to the partnership firm of M/s. Amratlal & Co., which translated to an approximate 1.78% share each. Accordingly, Plaintiff and his sister, Defendant no. 8 herein, jointly became entitled to a 1/9th share in the said property of their mother, late Bharti.

                   j) Pursuant thereto, late Mrs. Godavari and certain other persons/parties, including Defendant nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, executed a Deed of Assignment dated 25th October 2016 in favour of M/s. Ami Corporation, the sole proprietorship of original Defendant no. 10 [now represented by Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B)], assigning their respective 1.78% undivided shares in the property at Kandivali for a consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- payable to each of the six persons/parties thereto. Subsequently, on 29th October 2016, Plaintiff and his sister, Defendant no. 8 herein, also executed a similar Deed of Assignment in favour of M/s. Ami Corporation, assigning their joint 1.78% undivided share in the property at Kandivali for an identical consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-.

                   k) It is not in dispute that during her lifetime, late Mrs. Godavari received only partial consideration from M/s. Ami Corporation under the Deed of Assignment executed by her. While there is a slight discrepancy in the quantum of consideration received by her, as different amounts are mentioned across certain affidavits filed in the present proceedings, both Defendant no. 1 and Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B) are ad idem that a sum of Rs. 89,31,666.50 remains outstanding and due and payable to the estate of late Mrs. Godavari. M/s. Ami Corporation, through original Defendant no. 10 and now through Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B), however contends that the said balance amount is not presently due and payable, and shall be paid only upon the Assignors under the said Deed of Assignment (including late Mrs. Godavari) fulfilling their remaining obligations stipulated thereunder.

                   l) Thereafter, on or about 16th June 2017, late Mrs. Godavari executed a Gift Deed in favour of one of her sons, Defendant no. 1 herein, and pursuant thereto, drew a cheque in his favour for a sum of Rs. 82,00,000/-. Late Mrs. Godavari passed away intestate on 6th December 2019. The captioned suit was filed on 14th June 2021, along with the present Interim Application. The said Gift Deed came to be disclosed by Defendant no. 1 for the first time in his affidavit in reply dated 23rd August 2021, whereupon the Plaintiff amended his pleadings as well as the present Interim Application, challenging the validity of the said Gift Deed. The Plaintiff accordingly contends that the sum of Rs. 82,00,000/- gifted thereunder forms part of the estate of late Mrs. Godavari and has consequently included the same in the estate set out in Exhibit "Y" to the plaint.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF

7. Mr. Nitin Thakker, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, submits that the properties enumerated in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint form part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari, and that the Plaintiff has been unlawfully deprived of his rightful share therein. He contends that the Letters of Administration granted by this Court by order dated 7th September 1998 were confined only to the movable assets of late Mr. Nanalal and did not extend to the entirety of his estate, which, at the relevant time, also included several immovable properties, including those specified in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint.

8. He therefore submits that the estate of late Mr. Nanalal has never been fully or properly administered and continues to remain liable for distribution amongst his heirs and legal representatives. He further alleges that the exclusion of these immovable properties was deliberate and calculated to confer an undue advantage upon certain members of the Trivedi family, particularly the Defendants herein.

9. Mr. Thakker contends that the Ganesh Niwas Property forms part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari, and that the Defendants have unlawfully created third-party rights therein by treating the property as an asset of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, and by dealing with the 24 flats and 11 shops comprised therein, thereby depriving the heirs and legal representatives, including the Plaintiff, of their lawful entitlement. He further submits that 9 flats in the Ganesh Niwas Property also constitute part of the said estate, and that certain Defendants are in unauthorized occupation thereof, to the prejudice of the remaining heirs and legal representatives, in particular, his client, the Plaintiff.

10. He submits that there exists no document evidencing any transfer of the Ganesh Niwas Property, or the original Ganesh Building standing thereon, in favour of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders. He further contends that the agreements purportedly executed by the said partnership firm in favour of certain Defendants are unregistered and, therefore, cannot be regarded as valid or legally binding. On these grounds, he presses for the reliefs sought in the present Interim Application in relation to the Ganesh Niwas Property.

11. Insofar as the property at Kandivali is concerned, Mr. Thakker submits that the 16% share of late Mr. Nanalal in the partnership firm, M/s. Amratlal & Co., is undisputed. It is equally undisputed that, under the Consent Terms dated 24th December 1999 filed in Suit no. 2471 of 1984, late Mrs. Godavari became entitled to a 1.78% share therein. He points out that during her lifetime, late Mrs. Godavari dealt with the said share by executing a Deed of Assignment dated 25th October 2016 in favour of the original Defendant no. 10 – Sole Proprietor of Ami Corporation, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-.

12. Mr. Thakker contends that the entire consideration has not been paid by Ami Corporation to the estate of late Mrs. Godavari, and that a sum of Rs. 89,31,666.50 remains outstanding and due and payable by Defendant nos. 9(A) and 9(B). He therefore seeks appropriate reliefs in respect of the said outstanding amount.

13. Lastly, he submits that Defendant no. 1 fraudulently procured a Gift Deed dated 16th June 2017 from late Mrs. Godavari by inducing her to issue a cheque for the said amount. He points out that this fact came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff only upon Defendant no. 1 filing his reply, pursuant to which the Plaintiff has amended the pleadings to challenge the said Gift Deed. He therefore presses for the reliefs sought in the present Interim Application in relation to the said Gift Deed.

SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NOS. 1, 6 AND 7

14. The present Interim Application is opposed by Mr. Rajiv Narula, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant nos. 1, 6, and 7. At the outset, he submits that the Plaintiff is disentitled to any relief on account of gross delay, laches, and unexplained inaction in instituting the captioned suit. He points out that late Mr. Nanalal passed away in 1984, following which Testamentary Petition no. 570 of 1987 seeking Letters of Administration in respect of his estate was filed in 1987 by Defendant nos. 1 and 4, and the same came to be allowed by this Court by its order dated 7th September 1998.

15. He further submits that in the said Testamentary Petition, late Bharti, had expressly conveyed her no-objection by executing a Consent Affidavit dated 30th March 1988, along with the consent of her siblings, thereby acquiescing in the administration of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal by Defendant nos. 1 and 4, which has since been duly carried out. He submits that at no point did the Plaintiff approach the Testamentary Court to raise any grievance or allege any misconduct on the part of the Administrators, including Defendant no. 1.

16. He therefore contends that the captioned suit, instituted only on 14th June 2021, nearly 23 years after the grant of Letters of Administration and without any explanation for such prolonged delay, is a classic case of gross delay and laches, which disentitles the Plaintiff from claiming any equitable or discretionary reliefs.

17. Mr. Narula contends that the Plaintiff neither has nor can assert any independent share in the estate of late Mr. Nanalal, since his mother, late Bharti, was alive at the time of late Mr. Nanalal’s demise in 1984 and was, therefore, the person entitled to inherit his estate. He points out that late Bharti passed away only on 13th May 1996, and during the intervening period of nearly 12 years following late Mr. Nanalal’s death, she never once contended that the estate comprised any immovable properties apart from the movable assets disclosed in the Testamentary Petition.

18. He submits that late Bharti did not dispute the schedule of assets in the said Testamentary Petition, nor did she assert any claim in respect of the immovable properties now alleged by the Plaintiff to form part of the estate, as set out in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint, in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted as far back as 1998. He therefore contends that the claim now sought to be advanced by the Plaintiff, is wholly devoid of merits and is clearly an afterthought.

19. Even otherwise, Mr. Narula submits that the Ganesh Niwas Property never belonged to late Mr. Nanalal and, therefore, cannot be regarded as forming part of his estate. He submits that the property belonged to the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders, which treated it as its stock-in-trade with the consent of all its partners at the relevant time, including late Mr. Nanalal. In support of this contention, he relies upon a letter dated 26th February 1986 addressed by late Mrs. Godavari to the Income Tax Authority confirming the same.

20. He further submits that the Ganesh Niwas Property was redeveloped as far back as 1986, with redevelopment having commenced in or about 1982–83, during the lifetime of late Mr. Nanalal. He points out that the agreements in respect of such redevelopment were also entered into by the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders during his lifetime and that the occupants of the original Ganesh Building, including some of the Defendants herein who were treated as tenants of the original Ganesh Building, were placed in possession of flats in the redeveloped Ganesh Niwas Property, as far back as in/around 1986.

21. Mr. Narula emphatically submits that these events were carried out openly and were within the knowledge of all members of the Trivedi family, including late Bharti (during her lifetime) and the Plaintiff, none of whom raised any objection thereto for over 35 years, until the filing of the present suit. He further submits that, in the interregnum, a Deed of Conveyance has also been executed in favour of Defendant no. 10 Society in the year 2017.

22. Thus, Mr. Narula, contends that the 9 flats in Ganesh Niwas Property are not part of the estate of the late Mr. Nanalal and/or late Mrs. Godavari, as falsely contended by the Plaintiff, and he is not entitled to any claims in respect of the same.

23. Insofar as the property at Kandivali is concerned, Mr. Narula once again strenuously contends that the Plaintiff has wrongly and dishonestly sought to portray the said property as forming part of the estate of late Mrs. Godavari and late Mr. Nanalal. He invites my attention to the Consent Terms dated 24th December 1999 filed in Suit no. 2471 of 1984 and submits that, by virtue thereof, all the parties thereto, including the present Plaintiff and his sister, Defendant no. 8 herein, who was impleaded therein as Defendant nos. 12(a) and 12(b), expressly acknowledged that late Mr. Nanalal held only a 16% share in the partnership firm of M/s. Amratlal & Co., and that the share of each party/branch stood crystallized at 1.78% in the property at Kandivali.

24. He further points out that, pursuant to the said Consent Terms and the disposal of Suit no. 2471 of 1984, both the Plaintiff (jointly with his sister, Defendant no. 8 herein) as well as late Mrs. Godavari executed separate Deeds of Assignment in favour of the original Defendant no. 10 – Sole Proprietor of Ami Corporation, which deeds were duly registered, whereby they assigned their respective 1.78% share in the property at Kandivali in favour of Ami Corporation for a consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-, at least part of which has admittedly been received by them.

25. In these circumstances, Mr. Narula submits that the property at Kandivali can never be regarded as forming part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and/or late Mrs. Godavari, and that the claims now advanced by the Plaintiff, founded on such erroneous premise, are wholly untenable and cannot be countenanced by this Court.

26. Insofar as the Gift Deed is concerned, Mr. Narula submits that the same was executed by late Mrs. Godavari on 16th June 2017 whereunder, Defendant no. 1 was gifted a sum of Rs. 82,00,000/- by her, out of natural love and affection that she had for her son. He further submits that this amount was given by late Mrs. Godavari during her lifetime to Defendant no. 1 by cheque and that too, as far back as in 2017 and therefore, no reliefs of cancellation of the said Gift Deed can be sought in the captioned suit which otherwise seeks to administer the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari. In any event, he submits that no case has been made out for the interim reliefs that are sought in this regard.

27. He lastly denies that there is any jewellery or gold left behind by late Mrs. Godavari and/or that the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to any interim reliefs in respect thereof.

SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NOS . 9 (A) AND 9 (B )

28. Mr. Rubin Vakil, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Defendants no. 9A and 9B, also opposes the present Interim Application. He submits that his clients, who are not members of the Trivedi family, have been wrongly impleaded in the captioned suit which is filed for the partition of assets and properties left behind by the maternal grandparents of the Plaintiff.

29. He relies upon the Deeds of Assignment executed in favour of the original Defendant no. 10, the sole proprietor of Ami Corporation, and submits that the entire consideration thereunder has not been paid to the assignors, including late Mrs. Godavari, as they have yet to fulfil certain contractual obligations incumbent upon them. He nevertheless confirms that, pursuant to the execution of the said Deeds of Assignment, possession of the Kandivali property was duly handed over to his clients, who have remained in possession thereof continuously since then and even as of date.

30. He therefore submits that the dispute, if any, is purely contractual in nature between the parties to the said Deeds of Assignment, and that any claim relating to the unpaid consideration, including the sum of Rs. 89,31,666.50 allegedly payable to the estate of late Mrs. Godavari, cannot be adjudicated in the present suit, which is one for administration of her estate and the estate of late Mr. Nanalal. He accordingly adopts and supports the submissions advanced by Mr. Narula that the Kandivali property cannot be regarded as forming part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and/or late Mrs. Godavari, and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek any reliefs in respect thereof in the captioned suit or in the present Interim Application.

REASONS AND F INDINGS

31. I have heard the parties at some length and also perused the record. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the present proceedings arise from an Interim Application taken out in a suit which seeks a host of reliefs including inter alia administration of the estates of late Mr. Nanalal and late Mrs. Godavari. At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not concerned with finally adjudicating disputed questions of title but only with determining whether the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case warranting the grant of interim reliefs such as disclosure, injunction, deposit of monies, and/or appointment of a Court Receiver. In my view, the Plaintiff has failed to do so.

32. The first and foremost circumstance which disentitles the Plaintiff to any interim relief is the gross and unexplained delay and laches in approaching this Court. Late Mr. Nanalal passed away as far back as on 25th March 1984. Testamentary Petition no. 570 of 1987 seeking Letters of Administration in respect of his estate was filed shortly thereafter, and by an order dated 7th September 1998, Letters of Administration came to be granted by this Court. The Plaintiff’s mother, late Bharti, who was a Class-I heir of late Mr. Nanalal, was alive at the relevant time and had expressly consented to the grant of such Letters of Administration by executing a Consent Affidavit dated 30th March 1988. At no point during her lifetime, did she challenge either the grant of Letters of Administration or the Schedule of Assets disclosed therein.

33. The present suit has been instituted only on 14th June 2021, nearly 37 years after the death of late Mr. Nanalal and approximately 23 years after the grant of Letters of Administration. There is no explanation whatsoever for this extraordinary delay. It is well settled that a party who sleeps over his alleged rights for decades cannot seek equitable and discretionary interim reliefs, particularly where rights of other parties have crystallized and transactions have long since been concluded. The Plaintiff, claiming through his deceased mother, late Bharti, can stand on no higher footing than her. Her undisputed acquiescence during her lifetime binds the Plaintiff.

34. Further, once Letters of Administration have been granted by a competent Testamentary Court, the administration carried out pursuant thereto carries a presumption of regularity and legality. The Plaintiff has neither sought revocation of the Letters of Administration nor challenged the administration proceedings before the Testamentary Court. He has also not filed any other proceedings before the Testamentary Court. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Plaintiff, in collateral proceedings instituted decades later, to contend that undisclosed immovable properties formed part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal, without placing any cogent prima facie material in support thereof.

35. Insofar as the Ganesh Niwas Property is concerned, the material on record prima facie indicates that the property was redeveloped through the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders during the lifetime of late Mr. Nanalal, with redevelopment having commenced around 1982–83 and having been completed around 1986. Agreements in respect of flats were executed and possession was handed over to various occupants, including family members of the Trivedi family and third parties, as far back as in or about 1986. Thereafter, the property has also been conveyed to Defendant no. 10 Society by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 6th March 2017.

36. These transactions were effected openly and have remained unquestioned for several decades. Third-party rights have intervened, and the Ganesh Niwas Property now vests in Defendant no. 10 - Co-Operative Housing Society. At this interim stage, and in the absence of any substantive evidence demonstrating that the property and/or any part thereof, continued to remain the personal asset of late Mr. Nanalal or late Mrs. Godavari, it would be wholly impermissible for this Court to presume, merely on the basis of assertions in the plaint, that the said property forms part of their estate. Interim reliefs such as injunction or appointment ocertainf a Court Receiver cannot be granted on the basis of speculative or unproven claims.

37. Equally, insofar as the property at Kandivali is concerned, it is an admitted position that late Mr. Nanalal held only a 16% share in the partnership firm of M/s. Amratlal & Co. Upon his demise, the said share stood crystallized and distributed under Consent Terms dated 24th December 1999, duly filed in Suit no. 2471 of 1984, to which the Plaintiff himself and his sister, Defendant no. 8 herein, were parties. Each heir, including late Mrs. Godavari, and the Plaintiff and his sister jointly, claiming through their deceased mother, Bharti, became entitled to an approximately 1.78% share therein.

38. It is further not in dispute that during her lifetime, late Mrs. Godavari voluntarily dealt with her said share by executing a registered Deed of Assignment dated 25th October 2016 in favour of original Defendant no. 10, Sole Proprietor of Ami Corporation, for valuable consideration of Rs. 2,35,00,000/-, and that she received at least substantial consideration thereunder. Once late Mrs. Godavari assigned her rights in the said property during her lifetime, the property itself ceased to form part of her estate. At the highest, what could remain, if at all, would be a contractual claim for recovery of any unpaid balance consideration. Such a contractual claim cannot, at this interlocutory stage and in the absence of adjudication, be equated with the property itself so as to justify interim reliefs of the nature sought.

39. Significantly, the Plaintiff himself, along with his sister, executed a similar Deed of Assignment on 29th October 2016 in favour of the same Assignee (viz. original Defendant no. 10 – Sole Proprietor of Ami Corporation), thereby assigning their own share in the property at Kandivali. Having voluntarily divested himself of his rights therein, the Plaintiff cannot now seek interim reliefs on the footing that the said property continues to form part of the estate.

40. Insofar as the reliefs of disclosure are concerned, the Plaintiff seeks extensive disclosures relating to transactions dating back to the early 1980s, including the administration of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and dealings of the partnership firm of M/s. Ganesh Builders. Such reliefs are sought more than three decades after the relevant events. The law does not countenance revival of stale claims in this manner, particularly at the interim stage. Records may no longer be available, parties may have passed away, and rights have long since crystallized. Granting such reliefs at this stage would cause manifest prejudice and uncertainty.

41. It is also well settled that in a suit for administration, interim reliefs such as appointment of a Receiver or orders of deposit can be granted only where the Plaintiff demonstrates a clear prima facie interest in identifiable estate property and establishes a real risk of dissipation thereof. In the present case, the Plaintiff has failed to establish, even prima facie, that the properties enumerated in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint presently form part of the estate of late Mr. Nanalal and/or late Mrs. Godavari. On the contrary, the material on record, at least prima facie indicates that these properties were dealt with during their lifetimes or pursuant to binding family arrangements and contractual assignments.

42. The relief of appointment of the Court Receiver is an equitable and drastic remedy, which cannot be granted lightly or in the absence of compelling circumstances. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any imminent threat to any of the properties in Exhibit “Y” to the plaint. The Plaintiff has not made out the “Panch Sadachar”, the five well-settled prerequisites that are required to be satisfied before the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint a Court Receiver, which is, by its very nature, a drastic and extraordinary remedy. Granting such relief at this stage would amount to unsettling long-standing arrangements and disturbing settled possession, which this Court cannot do on the basis of unproven allegations.

43. Insofar as the Gift Deed dated 16th June 2017 is concerned, it is an admitted position that the same was executed by late Mrs. Godavari during her lifetime. Whether the said Gift Deed is valid or liable to be set aside is a matter that can only be determined upon trial and evidence. At this interlocutory stage, no case has been made out for grant of interim relief in that regard.

44. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions and circumstances is that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. Even otherwise, the balance of convenience is not in his favour, and on the contrary, grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the Defendants, if the interim reliefs sought, were to be granted inasmuch as, granting such reliefs at this interim stage would unsettle transactions and arrangements that have remained unquestioned for decades. The Plaintiff has thus failed to satisfy the well-settled threefold test governing the grant of interlocutory injunction, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience being in his favour, and the likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of such relief.

45. In these circumstances, the present Interim Application is wholly devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.

ORDER

(a) The present Interim Application is dismissed.

(b) There shall be no order as to costs.