IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.
) OF THANE,
AT THANE
SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. ____ OF 2024
1) Smt. Chhaya Dattatray Patil,
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
2) Mr. Kapil Dattatray Patil,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
3) Mr. Abhay Dattatray Patil,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
4) Ms. Seema Munesh Mhatre alias Sanjivani Dattaray Patil
2
Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
All the above Plaintiff no. 1 to 4
Having its address at: Village Morve,
Uttan Road, Bhayander (West),
Tal. & Dist. Thane ...
Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1) Mr. Rajendra Sudhakar Mhatre
Age: 68 years, Occ: Not Known,
2) Mr. Ranjit Sudhakar Mhatre,
Age: 66 years, Occ: Not Known,
3) Mr. Shekhar Sudhakar Mhatre
3
Age: 64 years, Occ: Not Known,
All above named Defendant nos. 1 to 3
Having its address at: Flat no. 104, Malti Sadan Tower,
Bhayander (West), Tal. & Dist. Thane.
4) Mr. Jagdev Namdeo Mhatre,
Age: 63 years, Occ: Business,
5) Mr. Vicky Jagdev Mhatre,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
6) Mr. Vimog Jagdev Mhatre,
Age: 34 years, Occ: Business
All above named Defendant nos. 4 to 6
Having its address at: Bungalow no. 631,
4
Aaichi Savli, Morve Gaon, Uttan Road,
Bhayander (West), Tal. & Dist. Thane
7) The Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation,
A Body Corporate, constituted under BPMC Act,
Having address at- Chattrapati Shivaji Marg,
Bhayander, Taluka and District Thane ...
Defendants
(APPLICATION UNDER ORDER
39
RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 of Civil Procedure
Code 1908)
THE PLAINTIFFS ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT
AS UNDER:
1) The Plaintiffs state that they are residing at the address more
particularly set out in the cause title and they are the
Agriculturist by profession.
2) The Plaintiff's predecessor Mr. Nalya Adinvar Patil was the
protected tenant of land bearing old survey no. 180, new survey
5
no.15, Hissa no. 4, admeasuring 26.8 Gunthas i.e. equivalent to
2680 square meters lying, being situated at village Morva,
Bhayander (W) Taluka & District Thane. Hereinafter be referred
to as “Suit Property”.
3) Mr. Nalya Adinvar Patil i.e. Plaintiff's predecessor was a
protected tenant and occupant of the suit property. The name of
Mr. Nalya Adinvar Patil was recorded as protected tenant vide
mutation entry no. 1306 in the records of rights. Hereto annexed
and marked as Exhibit-“A” is the copy of the mutation entry
no. 1306.
4) Mr. Nalya Adinvar Patil demised on 19/12/1984 leaving behind
him a daughter Mrs. Chandrabai Bhaskar Patil as his only legal
representatives/heirs. The name of Mrs. Chandrabai Bhaskar
Patil recorded in the record of rights vide mutation entry no.
2848. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“B” is the copy
of the mutation entry no. 2848.
5) Mrs. Chandrabai Bhaskar Patil demised on 27/07/1990 and she
had made a Will dated 21/03/1990 which was registered with
the SRO. Based on the Will dated 21/03/1990, the suit property
was transferred to her nephew Mr. Dattatray Sukur Patil i.e. the
father of Plaintiffs.
6) The name Mr. Dattatray Sukur Patil was recorded in the record
of rights vide mutation no. 3032. Mr. Dattatray Sukur Patil
demised on 28/12/2014 leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his only
legal heir/ representatives. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit- “C” is the copy of the mutation entry no. 3032.
6
7) After the demise of Mr. Dattatray Sukur Patil, the Plaintiffs are
the legal representatives and hence acquired right, title, interest
over the suit property as the legal successor of Late Dattatray
Sukur Patil.
8) After the demise of their father, they approached the concerned
office of Talathi to add their names as legal
heirs/representatives of late Dattatray Sukur Patil, the Plaintiffs
found that the suit property is lying in the name of Defendant
no. 5 & 6.
9) After serious inquiry, it was revealed that the names of
Defendant no. 5 and 6 are recorded in record of rights vide
Conveyance Deed dated 24/10/2008, which is registered on
24/10/2008 at sub-registrar of Assurances, Thane at serial No.
TNN-4/9209/2008 (Alleged Conveyance Deed). The
Defendant no. 4 also executed the Power of Attorney dated
24/10/2008 in favor of his son i.e. Defendant no. 5 and 6. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit-“D” is the copy of alleged
Conveyance Deed.
10) It is pertinent to note that, Plaintiffs have executed power of
attorney dated 17/12/2007 for the purpose of obtaining various
permissions for development of suit property in favor of
Defendant no. 1 to 3. The said Power of Attorney was notarized
with the Notary Public. (Notarized Power of Attorney).
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“E” is the copy of
Notarized Power of Attorney.
7
11) On the basis of Notarized Power of Attorney the Defendant no.
1 to 3 have executed Substituted power of attorney/General
Power of Attorney in favor of Defendant no. 4 which is allegedly
registered with the Sub-registrar of Assurances on 29/05/2008.
(Substituted Power of Attorney).
12) On the basis of Substituted Power of Attorney, the Defendant
no. 4 along with Defendant no. 1 to 3 allegedly transferred the
suit property in favor of Sons of Defendant no. 4 i.e. Defendant
no. 5 and 6.
13) It was also revealed from the perusal of alleged Conveyance
Deed that, the Defendant no. 4 obtained the sale permission
under the provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1956 on 10/10/2008. But the Conveyance Deed is
executed in favor of Defendant no. 5 and 6 instead of
Defendant no. 4.
14) The Notarized Power of Attorney is restricted for the purpose of
obtaining permissions in respect of suit property. No Power of
Sale or substitution is given in the aforesaid Notarized Power of
Attorney. The Said Power of Attorney was not registered as per
the mandate of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, further
substituted Power cannot be granted when there is no power as
such in notarized Power of Attorney.
15) On the basis of aforesaid Notarized Power of Attorney, the
Defendant no. 1 to 3 have executed the Substituted Power of
Attorney/Irrevocable Power of Attorney on 29/05/2008 and
surprisingly by virtue of alleged substituted power of
attorney/Irrevocable Power of Attorney, the Defendant no. 4
have received more powers than that of original Notarized
8
Power which was only given for the purpose of Development of
the suit property. It is the basic principle of transfer of property
that, “"No one gives what he does not have". Therefore,
from the perusal of the notarized power of attorney it is clear
that, the Defendant no. 1 to 3 do not have the power to
execute the substituted Power of Attorney/Irrevocable Power of
Attorney nor have power to execute conveyance in favor of
anyone including Defendant no. 4. Therefore, the alleged
Substituted Power of Attorney is void from the inception i.e.
void-ab-into.
16) Therefore, the subsequent Agreements/ Deeds executed by
the Defendants on the basis of Substituted Power of Attorney/
Irrevocable Power of Attorney is void ab-initio and not binding
upon these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not received any
consideration in respect of alleged Conveyance Deed. It is a
well settled principle that the agreement without consideration
is void agreement. In this case the Conveyance Deed is
executed on the basis of fraud Substituted Power of
Attorney/Irrevocable Power of Attorney and therefore, the
alleged Conveyance Deed and the alleged Substituted Power of
Attorney/Irrevocable Power of Attorney is Void from the
inception. Therefore, it is not binding on these Plaintiffs.
17) The Substituted Power of Attorney dated 29/05/2008 is prima
facie illegal and void document. All further documents are
based on this illegal and void Power of Attorney is also void.
The Notarized Power of attorney which is executed by the
Plaintiffs and their father in favor of Defendant no. 1 to 3 is not
registered. As per the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, the
Power of Attorney must be registered.
9
18) The Plaintiffs have issued legal notice in respect of aforesaid
fraud played by Defendant no. 1 to 3 on Plaintiff on 10th April
2023 through Adv. Vinod Thakur. The Plaintiffs have also issued
separate legal notice to Defendant no.4 and Defendant no.5 &
6 on 10th April 2023. The aforesaid notices were duly served
upon all Defendants.
19) The Defendant no. 1 and 2 have replied to the aforesaid notices
through Adv. Supriya D. Naik on 2/05/2023. The same advocate
has replied to the aforesaid notices for the Defendant no. 4 to
6. The aforesaid replies dated 02/05/2023 are identical and
issued by the same advocate.
20) From the perusal of the aforesaid replies, it reveals that the
plaintiffs have allegedly executed an Agreement dated
17/12/2007. Again it is revealed that the Plaintiffs have
allegedly ratified and confirmed the legal rights of Defendant
no. 5 and 6 in respect of suit property by executing
confirmation deed dated 14/12/2012.
21) Therefore, again the Plaintiffs have issued notice dated 12th
May 2023 and given specific reply of the whole contents and
allegations made in reply dated 02/05/2023. The Plaintiffs in its
notice dated 12th May 2023 has called upon the advocate Ms.
Supriya D. Naik of Defendants to provide the copy of the
alleged agreement dated 17th December 2007 and the alleged
confirmation deed. The Plaintiffs state that, no response has
been received from the Plaintiffs or their Advocate till date.
22) A new concocted story put forth by the Defendant in his reply
i.e. of agreement dated 17th December 2007 being executed by
10
these Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant no.1 to 3 for
consideration.
23) However, even after service of notice and after lapse of 6
months, the Defendants have willfully refused to provide any
inspection of the alleged Agreements/Deeds to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are unaware about the alleged documents and they
have received the knowledge of aforesaid documents from the
reply dated 2nd May 2023, which clearly depict that no
agreement as alleged dated 17/12/2007 was executed by these
Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant no 1 to 3.
24) It is required to be noted that, the reply dated 2 nd May 2023
which is issued by only Defendant 1 and 2 even when
Defendant no. 1, 2, 3 who are real brothers are being served
with the same notice dated 10th April 2023. The intention of
Defendant 1 to 3 in is considered to be common, that these
three real brothers from beginning till now are in collusion.
From the perusal of alleged Conveyance Deed it is clear that,
no agreement dated 17/12/2007 is annexed to the subsequent
documents fraudulently executed by Defendant no.1 to 3 with
Defendant no.4 and thereafter with Defendant no. 5 to 6.
25) The Plaintiffs states that, a totally false and concocted story is
put forth in reply dated 02/05/2023 by the Defendant no. 1 to
6, that an alleged Confirmation Deed was executed on
14/12/2012 by these Plaintiffs with the Defendant no. 5 and 6,
and towards which sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- is paid to the
Plaintiffs. The alleged confirmation deed was never ever
executed, prepared between the parties, hence to conclude the
said concocted story, it is represented by Defendant no. 1 to 6,
11
that the said confirmation deed is with these Plaintiffs, how
come the Defendant who makes payments will provide or give
original to these Plaintiffs, and not keep with himself. The said
statement and a fictitious story made up is itself false and
cannot be even imagined to be genuine, as no question or
issue arises at all for the Defendant no. 5 & 6 in 2012 to
execute the alleged confirmation deed, when as per
Defendants herein the rights over suit property was transferred
to Defendant no. 1 to 3 firstly from Plaintiffs vide alleged
agreement dated 17/12/2007, which was then transferred to
Defendant no.4 by substituted /Irrevocable power of attorney
executed in favor of Defendant no. 4. Thus for what reasons
and why would the Plaintiffs and Defendant no. 5 & 6 will even
execute the confirmation deed as alleged. The said story put
forth is false, fabricated and a concocted, which is only an
imaginary one without having executed any document as
alleged in reply by the Plaintiffs with Defendant no. 5 & 6.
26) The Plaintiffs state that, the original owner was Mr. Dattatray
Sukur Patil who was having right, title and interest over suit
property, thus without having acquired the rights, title and
interest of the suit property, the Plaintiffs late father during his
lifetime, the right as represented and said to have accrued by
way of said alleged agreement dated 17/12/2007 to Defendant
no. 1 to 3 is false, an illegal and unlawful statement. The
question of sale by these Plaintiffs of suit property does not
arise at all, as their father late Dattatray Sukur Patil was alive
till 2014. Thus on this count itself it is proved out that the story
as put forth by Defendant no. 1 to 3 is false, bogus and
concocted without having iota of evidence to support the said
story. The Defendant no. 1 to 3 was in collusion with Defendant
12
no. 4 to 6 has played systematic fraud on these Plaintiffs by
misusing a notarized power of attorney.
27) The Plaintiffs state that, these Plaintiffs have executed the
power of attorney dated 17/12/2007 which was only notarized
in favor of Defendant no.1 to 3, thereby the power was
provided to the Defendant no.1 to 3 so as to get necessary
approvals, permissions for development of suit property and for
which, whatever the legal norms where required to be fulfilled
same would be completed on behalf of Plaintiffs by Defendant
no.1 to 3 before competent government authority. The said
power of attorney was never registered and the Defendant no.1
to 3, have only right to represent before competent authority in
respect of development of suit property. Further the Plaintiffs
states that, at the time of executing Power of Attorney their
late father was alive and it was his owned property which can
never be transferred alienated to third parties by these
Plaintiffs without their father's consent.
28) It is contention of Defendant no. 1 to 3 that agreement dated
17/12/2007 is executed by these Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant
no. 1 to 3. The Plaintiffs had taken due search, after receiving
knowledge through reply dated 02/05/2023, before competent
Sub-Registrar Office of Assurances of District Thane, however
no such agreement dated 17/12/2007 is found in the SRO,
Thane to this Plaintiffs, ever executed by Plaintiffs in favor of
Defendant no.1 to 3 till date.
29) The alleged power of attorney is notarized, when the
agreement is executed in favor of Defendant as alleged is not
answered in reply nor is the copy of agreement provided or
13
given for inspection. The question of giving further power of
attorney is unwarranted and cannot be done at all. The case of
Defendant no. 1 to 3 defeats here only. The Plaintiffs state that,
Plaintiffs has given this Defendant no.1 to 3 the power for
specific work and not for any further sale, transfer of suit
property, still it is said to be done, thus the Defendant in all in
collusion with each other have done the acts which is of
deceiving this Plaintiffs intentionally and dishonestly. The
Plaintiffs state that, the Defendant no. 1 to 3 based upon
notarized power of attorney have further executed a
substituted Power of Attorney in favor of Defendant no. 4 on
29/05/2008 and the Defendant no.4 who had the knowledge
that Defendant no. 1 to 3 is not at all having any right, title and
interest in suit property nor have any agreement executed in
their favor, based on notarized power of attorney dated
17/12/2007, further transferred willfully and knowingly in
collusion in his favor and subsequently after getting sale
permission dated 10/08/2008 from concern revenue authority,
on basis upon said Substituted /Irrevocable power of attorney
dated 29th May 2008 transferred the suit property in favor of
Defendant no. 5 and 6 on 24th October 2008. The Defendant no.
4 to 6 are family members i. e. Defendant no. 4 is father of
Defendant no. 5 and 6.
30) The Plaintiffs state that, Defendant no. 1,2,3 are the real
brothers in collusion and connivance with Defendant no. 4 to 6
who are also from one family, upon false and fabricating
agreement/Deeds as alleged, which is not at all executed by
Plaintiffs and the alleged agreement is never ever annexed in
any further transfers done by Defendant inter-se, have
committed fraud upon these Plaintiffs of their valuable rights in
14
the suit property and the said collusion was intentional and
with dishonest intention, whereby the Defendant no. 1 to 3
have taken / received valuable consideration from the
Defendant no. 4 to 6 as per the said conveyance dated 24 th
October 2008 which is executed by the Defendant no.1 to 3
through Defendant no.4 as the Substituted/ Irrevocable power
of attorney holder in favor of Defendant no.5 & 6 without any
written or oral consent or prior approvals of any of this
Plaintiffs.
31) The whole issue is of misuse of notarized power of attorney
executed in favor of Defendant no. 1 to 3 who had knowledge
that they cannot by the said power of attorney dated
17/12/2007 sell or transfer the suit property and also that on
basis of the power of attorney, they cannot claim rights over
suit property thus Defendant no. 1 to 3 then in collusion
without making payment to Plaintiffs or any consideration
entered into Substituted/ Irrevocable power of attorney with
Defendant no. 4 intentionally with ill and malafide intentions.
The further documents that are executed inter-se and
considerations that have passed between the Defendants
without making any payments to these Plaintiffs is illegal and
done with intention of defrauding the Plaintiffs with common
intention to cheat. The Defendant no. 1, 2, 3 never ever had
any rights to accept consideration for Plaintiffs, neither they
had any rights to enter into any Substituted/ Irrevocable power
of attorney in favor of Defendant no.4 as they have done in
present case, a clear act of misuse of document thereby
preparing of further false and fabricated deeds/documents in
collusion thereby caused wrongful loss to the Plaintiffs. These
15
Defendants have prepared false and fabricated documents
without having any title over the suit property.
32) The Plaintiffs state that, the Defendant no. 1 to 3 are from day
one of the receipt of notarized power of attorney have intention
to defraud this Plaintiffs for reason that the Defendant no. 1 to
3, who have been given power only in respect of getting
necessary permission from competent authority and no rights
were transferred, alienate in favor of Defendant no. 1,2,3 by
these Plaintiffs, question of alleged agreement dated 17 th
December 2007 executing in favor of Defendant no. 5 and 6 do
not arise at all. It has been revealed that the alleged
agreement dated 17/12/2007 is missing in the said conveyance
deed.
33) The Plaintiffs state that, the Defendant no. 1 to 3 never had
any right, title, interest over the suit property. All Defendants
have misrepresented the competent authority by preparing
false document i.e. Substituted /Irrevocable power of attorney
executed in favor of Defendant no.4 by Defendant no. 1 to 3
dated 29th May 2008, when Defendant no. 1 to 3 never had any
right to transfer/give power in favor of Defendant no. 4.
34) The Plaintiffs state that, the power of attorney dated
17/12/2007 being a notarized one gives no power to the
Defendant no. 1 to 3 to further transfer, alienate any rights,
title, and interest over the suit property in favor of Defendant
no. 4 which is unlawfully done by Defendant no. 1 to 3. The
modus operandi to cheat the Plaintiffs can be seen when the
Power of Attorney is executed in favor of Defendant no. 4.
16
35) A false and fabricated conveyance deed and Irrevocable power
of attorney is executed by the Defendants inter-se and no
amount of consideration is ever transferred /paid by any of
Defendant till date to these Plaintiffs in respect of suit property.
Thus all the Defendants have committed an act of cheating in
collusion. They have prepared the alleged Irrevocable power of
attorney, conveyance deed without Plaintiff's consent and
thereby all the Defendant have wrongfully gained from suit
property in which they never had any rights and even wrongful
loss is thereby caused to these Plaintiffs.
36) The Plaintiffs state that, before approaching this Hon’ble court
the Plaintiffs have given written complaint to Bhayander police
station dated 18/08/2023 representing all the facts as
represented in this present suit and inform the concerned
police station about act of cheating, criminal breach of trust
and preparation of false document being prepared by all these
Defendants.
37) The Plaintiffs state that, prima facie Plaintiffs has proved his
case, the preparation of false documents executed by
Defendants in collusion and with common intention of all
Defendants who have conspired to commit the offense as
alleged and thereby to gain wrongfully and caused wrongful
loss to these Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further state that, the
Defendant no. 4 to 6 have erected a tin shed around the suit
property and they are using the suit property unlawfully by
causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiffs and the defendant may
create third party interest in the suit property. Hereto annexed
and marked as Exhibit-“F” is the copy of Photographs of suit
property.
17
38) The Plaintiffs state that, cause of action for filing present
Plaintiffs arose for first time when this Plaintiffs received
knowledge of alleged documents/deeds prepared by all the
Defendants and immediately upon the receipt of document
from the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, the Plaintiffs
have initiated legal action against all the Defendant, by issuing
legal notice dated 10/04/2023 to all Defendants. Again, Cause
of action arose when Plaintiff issued notice dated 12/05/2023
and called upon Defendants to provide the copy of alleged
Agreement dated 17/12/2007 and alleged Confirmation Deed.
But the Defendant failed to provide the alleged agreements
and therefore, the cause of action is continued. The
Conveyance Deed executed by the Defendant no. 4 in favor of
Defendant no. 5 and 6 is void ab-initio. The Conveyance Deed
was executed on the basis of false and frivolous Substituted
Power of Attorney. Therefore, all the documents in respect of
which the declaration is sought appear to be void ab-initio.
Therefore, the present suit is well within limitation. It is
submitted that cause for filing is one that is continuous in
nature and hence present suit is maintainable and is in
limitation.
39) The Plaintiffs state that, they have got reasonable
apprehension that there is an imminent danger to legal right,
title interest, share and claims of the Plaintiffs in the Suit
Property in the hands of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The Plaintiffs
submit that, therefore the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and their
agents, servants including Power of Attorney holders and /or
any person claiming through them or under them are required
to be restrained by an order of ad-interim injunction and
temporary injunction from transferring, selling, assigning
18
alienating and disposing of the Suit Property to any third party
or person by executing or entering into any further agreement,
writing, things, deeds, and documents in respect of the Suit
Property and thereby create any third party interest of such
third party in respect of the Suit Property, during pendency of
the present Suit.
40) The Plaintiffs submit that, they have made out strong prima
facie case so far as their legal rights in the Suit Property is
concerned. Hence, the Plaintiffs are legally entitled to protect
the same through this Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiffs submit that;
therefore, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are urgently required to
be restrained by an order of ad-interim injunction and
temporary injunction or order of status-quo as sought for. As
the Plaintiffs are having legal rights, title, interest in the Suit
Property with them and under such circumstances if the
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 succeed to dispose of the Suit Property
and/or succeed to third party interest, in that event, their
valuable legal right, title, claims and interest will be severally
affected and the Plaintiffs will suffer great injury and an
irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of
money.
41) The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek an urgent relief of
an ex-parte ad-interim injunction or order of status-quo against
the Defendants. The Plaintiffs submit that, on the other hand
the Defendants will not suffer any loss or neither injury nor it
will cause any prejudice to them if an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction or order of status-quo is passed against them. The
Balance of Convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiffs; and if
interim reliefs as prayed for are not awarded to the Plaintiffs,
19
they would suffer great irreparable loss and injury which cannot
be compensated in terms of money, hence this is a fit case to
grant the relief of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order or
order of status-quo against the Defendants.
42) The Plaintiffs therefore pray that:-
a. The Defendants and their agents, servants, executors,
administrators, and anybody claiming through or under
them be restrained by an order of temporary injunction
from acting upon the suit Power of attorneys and suit
Conveyance Deeds and from approaching any authorities
for seeking any permission pertaining to suit property and
or from initiating any steps with regard to development of
the suit property and/or from alienating/transferring and
from creating third party interest in and over the suit
property or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever till
the pendency of this suit;
b. The Defendants their agents, servants, executors,
administrators, and anybody claiming through or under
them be restrained by an order of temporary injunction
from taking over the possession of the suit property or any
part thereof and/or from entering upon the suit property
and or from taking over forcibly the possession of the suit
property till the pendency of the present suit;
c. the Defendants their agents, servants, executors,
administrators and or anybody claiming through or under
them be restrained by the order of temporary injunction of
this Hon'ble Court from changing the nature of the suit
property or any part thereof, and or doing any sort of
20
construction, development or other activities in, upon the
suit property or any part thereof, in any manner
whatsoever till the pendency of the present suit.
d. That Defendant no. 7 their representatives, officers etc. be
restrained by an order of temporary injunction from
granting any further sanction, revised plan, permission or
plans, granting Commencement Certificate, Occupation
Certificate in respect of suit property or any part thereof,
till the pendency of the present suit.
e. That this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment, order and
decree may be pleased to restrain the Defendants vide its
temporary injunction from taking coercive action thereby
detrimental to the rights and interest of the Plaintiffs, with
respect to the suit property.
f. Interim and ad-interim injunction or order of status-quo in
terms of prayer clause (a) to (e) hereof be awarded to the
Plaintiffs;
g. Cost of the present Application be provided for.
h. Any other and further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the
case, may kindly be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Filed in Court at Thane
On ___ /01/2024 Plaintiffs
21
1. Smt. Chhaya Dattatray Patil,
2. Mr. Kapil Dattatray Patil,
3. Mr. Abhay Dattatray Patil,
22
4. Ms. Seema Munesh Mhatre alias
Sanjivani Dattatray Patil
VERIFICATION
Mr. Abhay Dattatray Patil, i.e. the Plaintiff no. 3, having address:
Village Morve, Uttan Road, Bhayander (West), Tal. & Dist. Thane, do
hereby verify that the contents of Plaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, belief and information.
Solemnly verified at Thane
23
On ___/01/2024
Plaintiffs
1. Smt. Chhaya Dattatray Patil,
2. Mr. Kapil Dattatray Patil,
3. Mr. Abhay Dattatray Patil,
24
4. Ms. Seema Munesh Mhatre alias
Sanjivani Dattatray Patil
Advocate for Plaintiffs
