Arun Sankpal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2024 Mohan Hirachand Shah ..Applicant Aged bout 93 years old, Occ : Nil Indian Inhabitant, residing at Mandava, Post Dhokwade, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad, Presently at : 1701, Chira Bazar, Opp. Gajdhar Road, Marine Line, Mumbai – 400 002.

Versus

1. Bina Ketan Samani, Age about 53 years, Occ : Agricultural & Business, Indian, Inhabitant, residing at Mandava, Post Dhokawade, Taluka Alibag, District Raigad, Presently at : 1301 C, Wheel Apartment, 2. Anuradha Yatin Patel, Aged about 59 years, Occ : Housewife, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Mandava, Post Dhokwade, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad, Presently at : 1701, Chira Bazar, Opp. Gajdhar Road, Marine Line, Mumbai – 400 002.

3. Nanda Mohan Shah, Aged about 60 years, Occ : Nil, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Mandava, Post ARUN RAMCHANDRA Dhokwade, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad, SANKPAL Presently at : 1701, Chira Bazar, Digitally signed Opp. Gajdhar Road, Marine Line, by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Mumbai – 400 002.

Date: 2025.03.01

4. Gita Mohan Shah, Aged about 58 years, Occ : Nil, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Mandava, Post Dhokwade, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad, Presently at : 1701, Chira Bazar, Opp. Gajdhar Road, Marine Line, Mumbai – 400 002. …Respondents Mr. Jay Savla, Senior Advocate, with Renuka Sahu & Anoushka John, i/b M.P. Savla & Co, for the Applicant.

Mr. R. M. Hardas, with Ashwini B. Jadhav, i/b Jagdish Reddy, for Respondent No.1.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED : 27^th FEBRUARY 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. This revision is directed against an order dated 15^th March 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, whereby an application preferred by the applicant-defendant no.1 for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“the Code”) came to be rejected.

2. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under.

2.1 Respondent no.1-plaintiff and respondent nos.2 to 4- defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters of the applicant-

defendant no.1.

2.2 Respondent no.1 instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit properties asserting that property no. 753 and 752 situated at Dhokawade, Alibag, (suit properties “A” and “B”) and land bearing Survey No. 310 situated at Dhokawade, Alibag (suit property “C”) are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Late Hirachand Shah, the grandfather of the plaintiff, was a big businessman and had business interest in various sectors. Defendant No.1 earned income out of the various ancestral properties which came in the hands of defendant no.1. There were other family properties. However, since the dispute in respect of those joint family properties was pending before the Supreme Court, those properties were not included in the instant suit.

2.3 Defendant nos. 2 to 4, especially defendant no. 2 and her husband, were trying to usurp the properties by misrepresenting or occasionally inducing, enticing and pressurizing the defendant no.1, who, on account of his old age, was not in a position to take informed decisions. The plaintiff had thus demanded partition on 15^th March 2023. As the defendants refused to partition the suit properties, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit.

2.4 Defendant No.1 filed an application for rejection of the Plaint contending, inter alia, that there was no cause of action and the suit was an abuse of process of law and vexatious. The plaintiff has suppressed material facts. Suit properties “A” and “B” are the separate properties of defendant no.1 as those properties were released in favour of defendant no.1 by the brothers of defendant no.1 under a registered Release Deed dated 23^rd November 1973. Property “C” was the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 and it has since been sold by defendant no.1 under a registered Sale Deed in the year 2021 to Mr. Alok Agarwal an