(1.) The suit seeks a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant no.6 are joint owners of the suit property. The plaintiff seeks a decree for partition, for division of the suit property by metes and bounds and separate possession subject to a declaration being made as aforesaid. It also seeks disclosure on oath of permissions that may be obtained by defendant nos.1 to 6 who are developers and in whose favour the defendant no.6 has executed a Development Agreement. As a corollary, the plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the defendant nos.1 to 5 have no share, right, title or interest in the suit property and the Development Agreement executed between defendant no.6 and defendant no.1 to 5 is unenforceable null and void and to declare that the Power of Attorney is illegal. The plaintiff also seeks permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from dealing with, disposing, transferring the suit property and injunctions restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' access, possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the disposal, the plaintiff seeks injunctions in the aforesaid terms and inter alia appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay.
(2.) It is appropriate that description of the parties be set out prior to considering the interim application. The plaintiff and defendant no.6 are brothers. The plaintiff's grandfather Ramji Dayawala had started a family business. In or about 1965, the plaintiff claims to have joined this family business. The defendant no.6 also is said to have joined much later in the year 1977. The plaintiff and defendant no.6 are still partners of Ramji Dayawala Sons and Co. along with other family members. They carry on business inter alia at Surat. The suit property is said to have been purchased in July 1962 by the father of the plaintiff one Lalbhai. Lalbhai and Dahiben had seven children, 5 daughters and the 2 sons viz. the plaintiff and the defendant no.6. It is the plaintiffs' case that in or about 1968, Lalbhai was desirous of gifting the suit property to the plaintiff and defendant no.6 who are his two sons to the exclusion of five daughters. The plaint sets out several other aspects of properties purchased by Lalbhai during his lifetime. However, in the present suit we are only concerned with the property in Mumbai known as "Suvas".
(3.) It is the plaintiffs' case that sometime in August 1968 an oral family arrangement was arrived at between his parents, the plaintiff and defendant no.6 then a minor, agreeing that the property would always be used as a family home of the Contractor family in Mumbai. The parents Lalbhai and Dahiben, the plaintiff and defendant no.6 would at all times be joint owners with rights of occupation, possession and use along with their respective family members. A Gift Deed came to be executed on 4th September, 1968 wherein the plaintiff and defendant no.6 were described as "Donees". At that time, the defendant no.6 was a minor and was represented by his mother and natural guardian Dahiben. The suit property was said to be subject of an Indenture of Mortgage in August 1967 and it was later registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances in Bombay in or about 1968.