A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

( 1 ) BY consent, the Notice of Motion was heard for final disposal. Accordingly, this order will dispose of the notice of Motion finally.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has relied on the family tree of Murarka Family at Exhibit 'a', correctness whereof was not in dispute. The same reads thus:

( 3 ) THE plaintiff defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 10 to 21 are the heirs and legal representatives of Nathmal Murarka. The said Nathmal Murarka expired on 8th October 1992. The said Nathmal had one son (defendant No. 1)and seven daughters (Laxmibai, plaintiff and defendant Nos. 17 to 21 ). At the relevant time, all were married.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff Nathmal inherited property from his mother Jankibai. The said Jankibai had two sister-in-laws-Narmadabai B. Gangabhishen and Shivbai j. Ghasiram. By a Deed of Conveyance dated 21st November 1947, certain land with structures standing thereon earlier called 'krisna Kunj' at 24, Nepean Sea road, Mumbai bearing Cadastral Survey no. 1/590 of the Malabar and Cumballa hill Division was transferred by one shivprasad Vaid in favour of the said jankibai, Narmadabai B. Gangabhishen and Shivbai J. Ghasiram in equal shares for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,218. 12/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Hundred Eighteen and Paise Twelve Only ). According to the plaintiff the said Jankibai, through whom the plaintiff claims right in respect of the said property, was 1/3rd owner thereof by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance dated 21st November 1947.

( 5 ) THE said Jankibai, however, died intestate on 18th May 1956, leaving behind her only child Nathmal as her only heir and legal representative in respect of her estate, effects, properties and credits. According to the plaintiff the estate of Jankibai, including the suit properly, devolved entirely and ex-clusively upon the said Nathmal. According to the plaintiff the said Nathmal also died intestate on 8th October 1992, leaving behind his son defendant No. 1 and seven married daughters i. e. The plaintiff defendant nos. 17 to 21 and late Smt. Laxmibai ramgopal Modi (defendant Nos. 11 to 16 being her only heirs) as his heirs and legal representatives. According to the plaintiff the said Nathmal's estate included a haveli situated at Podar Gate, Navalgarh, District jhunjhunjunu, Rajasthan, which also devoled entirely upon plaintiff defendant No. 1 and 17 to 21 and late Smt. Laxmibai ramgopal Modi in equal shares.

( 6 ) FOR the purpose of present order for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the Suit, we are concerned only with above referred property at Nepean sea Road.

( 7 ) AS aforesaid, besides Jankibai, there were other two co-owners having equal shares in the suit property being narmadabai B. Gangabhishen and Shivbai j. Ghasiram. Defendant No. 5 is the grandson of Narmadabai and is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. Defendant no. 6 is the wife of defendant No. 5, and defendant No. 7 is the son of defendant Nos. 5 and 6, who represent one branch of co-owners. Defendant No. 8 is the son of shivbai J. Ghasiram, and along with his three sisters, was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property being co-owners thereof. That defendant Nos. 11 to 16 are the legal heirs of late Smt. Laxmibai ramgopal Modi (the elder sister of the plaintiff), who expired on 16th November 2006. Defendant Nos. 17 to 21 are the younger sisters of the plaintiff and granddaughters of Jankibai, who are also entitled to the estate of Jankibai.

( 8 ) IT is the plaintiff's case that the suit property is the ancestral house of the paintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 21. The plaintiff resided in the said property from 1947 until her marriage in 1954. Even after marriage, the plaintiff continued to visit the other members of the family who resided in the said property and also to keep, remove and check her cupboard and personal belongings lying at the ancestral home. It is stated that until recently upto 2004 the plaintiff used to visit the ancestral home on Ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document