CYRUS DARABSHAW PATEL Vs. RUSI D PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.

(2.) THOUGH Mr.Rajabally has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Defendants nobody is present for Defendants today. No affidavit in reply is filed. This is a suit for administration of the estate of the deceased father of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit flat in which the Plaintiff claims to have 50% of share. The Plaintiff has also claimed a decree for partition and separate possession of the 50% share.

(3.) IF at all the Plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Darabshaw and he has a right in the property then he will get the Decree in respect of the 50% of the share. Merely because the Plaintiff has to recover mesne profit, Receiver cannot be appointed particularly when the Defendants have made a statement that they have no intention to dispose of the suit flat and also when the ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer (c) is granted to the Plaintiff to protect his interest. Consequently prayer for appointment of Receiver has to be rejected. Hence the following order :- O R D E R