LAWS(BOM)-1996-10-195

PRAMILA LALBHAI DEBHOYA Vs. HARISH LALBHAI DEBHOYA

Decided On October 10, 1996
Pramila Lalbhai Debhoya Appellant
V/S
Harish Lalbhai Debhoya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Judge of the City Civil Court Bombay by order dated 10.6.1992 granted interim injunction in terms of prayer (a) of Notice of Motion restraining the Appellants from entering into or remaining upon the ground floor premises which are exclusively in use and occupation by the Respondent. The same is challenged here.

(2.) THE Appellant no. 1 is the mother of Appellant no.2 and Respondent. There is one more son Dr. Kishore. He stays at a different place. It is the case of the Appellants that Appellant no. 1 was serving in Municipal Corporation and by virtue of her service plot was allotted to her in 1974 and the ground floor was constructed by her in 1975. That in 1985-86 ground floor was extended from about 700 to 1000 sq.ft. Similarly first floor was also built admeasuring about 1000 sq.ft. Respondent no. 1 is a doctor and he has passed M.D. in 1982. It is his case that he has contributed substantial amount for extension of ground floor premises and for building the first floor and in turn Appellant no. 1 agreed that Respondent shall stay exclusively in the ground floor premises and Appellant no. 1 and Appellant no. 2 on the first floor. The Appellants are trying to disturb his possession which required him to file the said suit, and take out Notice of Motion for interim relief.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the City Civil Court has taken into consideration the various documents and affidavits produced on record which clearly showed that Respondent has made substantial contribution for extension of ground floor and construction of first floor. The learned Judge has taken into consideration in detail the various facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order. Even the Court below has appointed Court Commissioner, who has submitted his report. The learned Counsel appearing for Appellants submitted that objections were filed on behalf of the Appellants to the said report. However, at this interim stage the learned Judge was right in relying upon the report.