1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the Plaintiff has complete and absolute right, title and interest and is the sole owner of the suit flat bearing Tenement No.11, situated in Madhurima Cooperative Housing Society, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The Plaintiff has also sought a declaration that she is the owner of Flat 303 in the newly constructed building of Defendant No.2 Society. The Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for injunction and appointment of the Court Receiver. In respect of the suit flat.

2. The Plaintiff is the sister of Defendant No.1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 21 October 1974, the Plaintiff was allotted Tenement No.11 in Building No.1 at D.N. Nagar, Andheri by MHADA. The Plaintiff had paid entire consideration of Rs.24,300/to MHADA. The Plaintiff has produced her Bank statement showing the payments made. The Plaintiff got married on 10 March 1980 and shifted to her matrimonial home. It is the case of the Plaintiff that parents of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were staying along with the Plaintiff. Parents of the Plaintiff continued to stay in the said tenement No.11 when the Plaintiff has shifted to matrimonial home. It is the case of the Plaintiff that all throughout the Plaintiff paid the maintenance to the Society. It is the case of the Plaintiff that ultimately MHADA transferred the entire property in favour of the Society by executing a Deed of Conveyance. Even in the Conveyance Deed, the name of the Plaintiff was shown as the original tenant in respect of Tenement No.11. The Plaintiff states that on the suggestion made to the Plaintiff that the membership of Defendant No.2 Society be transferred in the name of the mother of the Plaintiff during the period when the Plaintiff had shifted to her matrimonial home, the Plaintiff had made a request to the Society to join the mother as associate member in respect of the suit flat. It is the case of the Plaintiff that accordingly, the Society had joined the mother of the Plaintiff, Smt. Hira Virendra Agrawal as associate member. On 27 March 1999, the father of the Plaintiff expired. On 13 October 2004, the mother of the Plaintiff expired in the suit premises.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 12 October 2005, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 proposed redevelopment in respect of the flats in the Society and all the members of the Society were informed about the proposal of the redevelopment. However, no information came to be received by the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in the month of January 2010 when the Plaintiff visited the suit flat, the Plaintiff came to know that the building in which the suit flat was situated, had been demolished and the entire building was redeveloped by Defendant Nos.3 and 4. The Plaintiff thereafter, made enquiries with the Society and came to know that there was an agreement entered into by and between Defendant No.1 and Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit flat and the developer agreed to provide a permanent alternate accommodation, i.e. new Flat No.303 in the new Building in lieu of the original flat in favour of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has, therefore, filed this suit for declaration of her ownership.

4. Defendant No.1 has filed an affidavit in reply. It is the case of Defendant No.1 that though all record showed that the entire consideration amount in respect of Tenement No.11 was paid by the Plaintiff, in fact, the same was paid out of the family funds. Defendant No.1 has disputed the ownership of the Plaintiff in respect of Tenement No.11. It is the case of Defendant No.1 that during the life time of the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, Tenement No.11 came to be transferred by the Society in favour of the deceased mother. It is the case of Defendant No.1 that on 1 June 1983, the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 had nominated three persons in the record of the Society in respect of Tenement No.11, namely, (i) Mr.