P.C.

1. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 who are her minor children. The suit is filed by Plaintiff No.1 for herself as well as on behalf of Plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Defendant No.1 is the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Defendant No.2 is the father- in- law of Plaintiff No.1 and the grand father of Plaintiffs No,2 & 3. Defendant No.3 is the brother- in- law of Plaintiff No.1 and the Uncle of Plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Defendant No.4 is the mother- in- law of Plaintiff No.1 and Grandmother of Plaintiffs No.2 & 3.

2. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 got married in November, 1991 in Mumbai. They lived in the USA from 1991 onwards. The suit flat stood in their names. Plaintiff No.1 also claims to have a key to the suit flat as shall be seen presently.

3. Since October, 2006 there have been proceedings for divorce between the parties. Under certain restraint orders passed by the Superior Court of California in the USA. Plaintiff No.1 has been granted the right of residence in what is stated to be their ''family home'' in the USA. In those proceedings Defendant No.1 has shown a list of properties stated to be belonging to him. The Plaintiff No.1 has claimed a ½ share in the said properties. That, of course, is not a part of this suit.

4. ThePlaintiffs returned to Mumbai on 02.07.2007.

5. This suit is filed in August 2007 by the Plaintiffs claiming an equal share with Defendant No.1 in his HUF properties, movable and immovable enumerated in Exhibits D & E to the Plaint. The Plaintiffs have challenged a Deed of Gift executed by Defendant No.1 in respect of one of the suit flat registered on 11.12.2006, after their divorce proceedings commenced in the USA. The Plaintiffs claim that the suit flat is the matrimonial home of the 1st Plaintiff and have sought to restrain Defendants No.2 to 4 from entering thereupon or from interfering with the Plaintiffs' possession therein and have also sought to restrain all the Defendants from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party rights in all the suit properties, movable and immovable.

6. The Plaintiffs have sought rights as members and coparceners of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Defendant No.2. It is the Plaintiffs' claim that Defendant No.2 has formed a HUF with Defendants No.1 & 3 and the said HUF acquired larger properties which have been treated as joint family properties though purchased in various names. It is their case that the HUF owns several movable and immovable properties listed in Exhibits D & E to the Plaint. It may be stated that though so claimed, the Plaintiff No.1 is not and cannot be a member of the HUF of Defendant No.2. Plaintiffs NO.2 & 3 may claim to be such members if there is such a HUF. Hence the rights and entitlement s of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are distinct.

7. The Plaintiff No.1, as the wife of Defendant No.1, would be entitled to a ½ share in all the assets and properties of Defendant No.1 including a ½ share in his share in the HUF properties as a coparcener upon partition, consequent upon her marriage with him and her divorce. Her claim would subsist in the joint family properties as well as self acquired properties of Defendant No.1. Her right to the ½ share of the self acquired properties of Defendant No.1 and the joint properties of Defendant No.1 with herself would be adjudicated upon by the Competent Court in the USA having jurisdiction in the divorce proceedings between the parties. I am told that the list of the properties stated to be of Defendant No.1 has been furnished by Defendant No.1 in the superior court at California. This suit cannot concern itself with those properties or the rights of Plaintiff No.1 in those properties. Her right in the HUF properties of Defendant No.1 would only have to be considered in this suit.

8. Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 would have an interest as co-parceners by virtue of their very birth in the family of Defendant No.1. Hence if Defendant No.1 is