LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-68

PREMANAND GAJANAN NAIK Vs. SACHIT GAJANAN NAIK

Decided On March 25, 2014
Premanand Gajanan Naik Appellant
V/S
Sachit Gajanan Naik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 20.12.2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2013/D allowing the impleadment of respondent no.1 as defendant no. 2 to the suit.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 are brothers and co-owners of immovable property situated at Miranda road, Margao Goa. The petitioners submit that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 obtained a construction licence in their joint names for erection of a building on the said immovable property from the MMC Margoa, respondent no. 2. They further submit that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 obtained joint licence for construction of the said building and after completion of the building project, respondent no. 2 issued occupancy certificate jointly to petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1.

(3.) The petitioners submit that said immovable property stands jointly in the names of the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1. They further submit that sometime in the year 2006, respondent no.1 by suppressing material facts played a fraud upon the petitioner no.1 and managed to obtain a trade licence exclusively in his name to conduct business of lodging and restaurant from some portion of the building jointly owned by petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1. They further submit that the fact that the entire building is jointly owned by petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 was well within the knowledge of respondent no.2 and still respondent no. 2 granted trade licence to respondent no.1 allowing him to run from certain portion of the said building restaurant and bar. Petitioners submit that in no case without obtaining consent of petitioner no.1, respondent no. 2 could have granted trade licence to respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioners filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2013/D against respondent no. 2 for seeking declaration that trade licence granted by respondent no. 2 to respondent no.1 was null and void and necessary reliefs.