(1.) LEAVE under Rule 147 and 148 of the High Court O.S. Rules granted to take out Notice of Motion in terms of Draft Notice of Motion handed in. Notice of Motion returnable on 2nd September 1996.
(2.) MR . S.V. Doijode for the plaintiff. Mr. R.M. Kadam for the defendant No.1.
(3.) ON behalf of the Ist defendant, it was submitted that the Ist defendant being the maternal aunt has been staying at the said place off and on and that her articles are also lying there. It was admitted however, that she also stays at Napean Sea Road where the flat which was originally belonging to her mother is situate. The said flat stands in the name of her son now and he and his family members are occupying the same. It was further admitted that the Ist defendant sometimes stays at Napean Sea Road and sometimes stays at the said bungalow. In my opinion an obvious attempt was made by the Ist defendant to create evidence in order to establish her right to remain in the bungalow despite the fact that she has premises of her own and despite the fact that the bungalow admittedly belonged to the deceased Gopi Krishna and after his death to his only minor daughter. First time when the Notice was sent to her by the plaintiff for moving an application for ad-interim relief, she replied by her letter dated 2nd April 1996 to the Advocate appearing for the plaintiff. The said letter was not on a letter head. However, after 8th April 1996 when time was given, she has got some letter heads printed showing the said bungalow at Khar as her residence. Compilation of documents was also produced on behalf of the first defendant trying to establish the fact that she has been residing there. These documents cannot help her as naturally during the lifetime of Gopi Krishna she was helping him in conducting the dance classes at the said bungalow. On being asked, the learned Counsel appearing for the Ist defendant fairly stated that the Ration Card and even her Pass-Port contained her address as that of Napean Sea Road.