Mrs. Damayanti Surendra Jaiswal v. Smt. Kusum Ramnarayan Jaiswal And ORS.

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.21694 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.21696 OF 2019 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.21694 OF 2019 Mrs. Damayanti Surendra Jaiswal ...Appellant vs.

Smt. Kusum Ramnarayan Jaiswal And Ors.

...Respondents

......

Mr. Anand Mishra, i/b. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, for the Appellant. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, a/w. Mr. Nikhil Karnawat and Ms. Sneha Patil, i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates, for Respondent Nos. 7 to 10. .......

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

DATED : 26 SEPTEMBER 2019 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This appeal from order challenges an ad-interim order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi on a draft notice of motion taken out by the Appellant (original plaintiff). 3.

The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the deed of release dated 20 March 2012, executed by her in favour of defendant nos. 7 to 11, was bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff, as the same

2/3 had been obtained by playing a fraud upon the plaintiff. The deed is a registered deed. The only case urged in support of the plaintiff's case of fraud is a bald assertion that "taking advantage of relation of the parties by way representing that the said document is required for the purpose of redevelopment of the property, the plaintiff made to sign the said document". It is also submitted that "taking advantage of the relations between the parties, at no point of time, the plaintiff was permitted to ready (read, sic?) the contents of the said document nor the plaintiff was explained about the contents of the said document in any manner whatsoever". The plaintiff is said to be having no knowledge of English language. It is, thus, submitted that she was made to sign the documents by playing a fraud upon her. These are nothing but generalised statements. The plaintiff cannot expect the Court to hold in her favour and injunct the defendants from acting on the registered release deed based on these general statements. That is obviously impermissible.

4.

In pursuance of the release deed, the defendants have entered into a development agreement with a third party developer, who has already pulled down the original building existing at site. At this stage, any interim restraint would clearly affect third parties prejudicially. No such relief can obviously be granted without hearing those third parties. The plaintiff herself states that the property has now been under redevelopment.

5.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the plaintiff's challenge to the ad-interim order. The appeal from order is dismissed.

3/3 6.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal from order, the civil application does not survive and is disposed of. Smita Gonsalves Date: 2019.10.07 17:32:14 +0530 Smita Gonsalves ( S.C. GUPTE, J. )