Rajani Vinod Mehta vs Janak Jivanlal Gandhi And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 15247 Bom

                                   1/3                   33 WP 3441-21.doc


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO.3441 of 2021

Rajani Vinod Mehta                       .. Petitioner
      Versus
Janak Jivanlal Gandhi and anr            .. Respondents

                            ...
Mr.Malcolm Siganporia i/b Jayesh Ramesh Vyas for the
petitioner.
Mr.Yogendra Kanchan with Ms.Ankita Sharma i/b YMK Legal for
the respondent no.1.

                   CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 25th OCTOBER 2021.

P.C:-

1 The petitioner before me is an applicant who took out Chamber Summons in the Execution Application filed in a Summary Suit which was decreed against her son Mr.Mehul Vinod Mehta. In the execution proceedings, the property which is sought to be attached is a Flat No.13, Neelkanth Nilayam, 10 th Road, Sandu Road, Chembur. The petitioner claim that the flat stand in her name to the exclusion of Mr.Mehul Mehta and reliance is placed on a deed of disclaimer executed on 29 th April 2004, which is signed by the two daughters of the petitioner and her son Mehul Mehta - the judgment debtor. Undisputedly, it is not a registered document.

Tilak





                                    2/3                   33 WP 3441-21.doc


2                 Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to

the attachment warrant which purport to attach the share of the judgment debtor in the said flat. This is without ascertaining the actual share, the valuation of the flat,etc. The argument advanced on behalf of the decree holder is that the said document in form of deed of disclaimer is being not a registered document and since it has been given effect to, in the register of the Society in the year 2021, it is a sham document and cannot be relied upon.

3 The petitioner before this Court is an aged lady who is admittedly to be divested of her shelter and she can only sympathize with her, since it is her son who has put her in such distress. However, a statement is made by the counsel for petitioner that he would persuade the judgment-debtor Mr.Mehul Mehta to take steps to satisfy the decree provided some breathing time is granted. It is informed that the matter is listed before the Executing Court on 28th October 2021.

4 I have no hesitation in observing that I am inclined to postpone the said proceedings and for which even the learned counsel for the decree holder has also gracefully consented, but this consent cannot be for an unlimited time and it is made clear that the judgment-debtor during the interregnum, shall make over to the decree holder the steps about the manner in which she would satisfy the decree. For the limited purpose, the matter is directed to be re-notified on 18th November 2021.

Tilak





                                    3/3                      33 WP 3441-21.doc




5                 It is made clear that if no steps are taken to that effect,

the Executing Court on the next date of hearing shall be directed to proceed with the matter. However, in the mean time, the Executing Court shall not proceed/pass any orders on the application.

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

Tilak