The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's consideration of the contentious nature of the plaintiff's claim, the time lag in challenging the Gift Deeds, and the stressed circumstances of the Hindu Undivided Families in granting interim relief to secure the interest of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

N.J.JAMADAR,J. - The applicant/plaintiff has preferred this application for interim relief in the nature of restraining the defendants from dealing with, disposing off, alienating, encumbering and/or creating third party rights in any manner whatsoever in or over the residential premises being Flat Nos. 201 and 202, 2nd Floor, Silver Solitaire CHS Ltd, situated at Plot No. 99, T.P.S. III, Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 77. (the suit flats), for appointment of Court Receiver and also restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from residing in the suit flats.

2. The applicant has instituted the suit for declaration that the Gift Deeds dtd. 20/11/2014 in respect of suit flats are void ab-initio, illegal and non-binding on the plaintiff, and that Niraj Jayantilal Mehta HUF and its members/coparceners including the plaintiff, are entitled to 50% undivided share in the suit flats and for an equitable partition and vacant, peaceful possession of the suit flats and mesne profit etc.

3. The plaintiff is the son of defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Defendant No. 1 is the real brother of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughter and son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff is a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family namely Niraj Jayantilal Mehta- HUF consisting of himself and his parents being defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 are the members of Umesh Jayantilal Mehta - HUF. The two HUFs jointly owned the suit flats.

4. The plaintiff 's grand-father Jayantilal Mehta had established business 'inter alia, of trading glass bottles. On account of the unscrupulous practices of defendant No. 1, the business suffered huge losses. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 became heavily indebted. Proceedings were instituted by the banks and financial institutions. While the plaintiff was still a minor, a suit being, Suit No. 2283 of 2011, was filed by the plaintiff, through next friend, and defendant No. 3 for herself and as guardian of defendant No. 4, against defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. In the said suit Notice of Motion No. 2759 of 2011 taken out by the plaintiffs for interim relief. Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 made a categorical statement that neither the said HUF nor the Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 had any intention whatsoever to create only third party rights/ interest in the suit flats. The said stand was reiterated in the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 on 12/10/2012.

5. The plaintiff claimed to have learnt that defendant No. 1, using his extreme undue influence and dominant position got defendant No. 5, the plaintiff 's father, to execute instruments purported to be Gift Deeds, as Karta of Niraj Jayantilal Mehta-HUF in respect of suit flats in favour of defendant No. 3 alone. Defendant No. 1 has played fraud on the members of the HUF and got the purported Gift Deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 3. Thus, a notice was addressed to defendants No. 1 to 6 on 19/11/2020. A bald reply was sent on 25/11/2020 denying the contentions of the plaintiff, on the premise that a detailed reply would follow. In the exchange of notices that followed, it transpired that two Gift Deeds in respect of flat Nos. 201 and 202 were executed and registered with the Registrar of Assurances on 21/11/2014.

6. The plaintiff was thus constrained to institute the suit as the Gift Deeds in favour of defendant No. 3 purportedly executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 5 in the capacity of Karta of respective HUF were void and illlegal. Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 had no authority in law to execute the Gift Deeds particularly in respect of the interest of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, without obtaining previous permission of the Court. Neither there was any legal necessity. Nor the alienation was for the benefit of the estate of the minor.

7. After the institution of suit, when the application for interim relief was taken up for ad-interim reliefs defendant Nos. 1 to 4 infor