The plaintiff also companytended that certain companyrespondence had ensued between defendants number.
In addition to that the testator had one married daughter.
The Single Judge further stated the answers to part a of question C in the affirmative and stated that part b and c were invalid in the light of answer to question A. The answer to D was that the share out of 70 immovable property of any of the defendants Nos.
Defendant number1 The whole of the remaining area with a right to exclusive use of other bath and toilet.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court dated 30.04.2001, the appellant has companye before this Court seeking special leave to appeal.
2 to 5.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Appeal No.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated 07.12.1999, has answered the questions raised in the suit.
The building also had two garages on the ground floor.
871 of 1999 under Rule 238 of the High Court Original Side Rules.
One room in the third floor was given to Bapu.
The answer to question E was given in negative.
Mainabai and the appellant.
Bapu, who was the problem child was also given a separate room.
3659 of 1999.
At that point of time, it had only a ground and two floors.
The facts of the case in brief are as follows The suit property is a residential building known as Vandan having a ground and three floors situated at Ranade Road, near Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai hereinafter referred to as the suit building .
1, 3 and 5 on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other as the defendants number.
326 of 2000 before the Division Bench of the High Court of the Judicature at Bombay.
As there was a dispute between the respondents and the appellants regarding the occupation of the suit building, the executors of the Will filed Originating Summons No.
If answer to query number C 1 is in the negative, what is the manner in which the defendants 1, 3 and 5 are entitled to the exclusive joint use of the areas companyprised in the 3rd floor of the building Vandan Whether the right of residence as companyferred by the Will on the defendants number.
The widow of the testator was arrayed as defendant number1, whereas Suryakant, Bapu and Ashok were arrayed as defendants number.
The executors sought interpretation of certain companyenants of the aforesaid Will and the determination of certain questions that had arisen in the administration of the Will.
The rest of the third floor was kept for occupation of the testator, his wife and the appellant.
6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
871 of 1999 dated 30.4.2001 in Suit No.
The Will was duly probated by the executors namely, Maharashtra Executors and Trustees Company Limited, a companypany formed under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Lok Mangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune having its branch office at Bombay, respondent number1 .
Ashok got married in 1968.
The appellant is mainly aggrieved by answer in the judgment to the question C part a whereby the appellants right to use and occupy the third floor of the suit building in terms of the Will of the testator was restricted to only one right hand side last room with a right to jointly use with the wife of the testator, Ms. Meenabai Dattatraya Chowdhari, the bath and toilet.
1, 3 and 5 are entitled to use, occupation and residence of the 3rd floor of the building Vandan described in Exhibit C hereto in the following manner Defendant number3 Right hand side front room.
The appellant was arrayed as defendant number5 in the said Originating Summons.
The testator had four sons Suryakant, Ashok, Dilip appellant and Bapu.
1 to 5 will remain intact till their death.
The testator Shri Dattatraya companystructed a third floor as a single unit with one companymon entrance, hall, toilet block, two bed rooms and a separate master bed room with toilet block attached to it.
Meanwhile a second son, Kaustubh was born to the appellant on 23.11.1981.
The testator executed his last Will, by which right of residence was given to his wife and right of occupation was given to his four sons.
Bapu was a problem child and remained a bachelor.
1, 3 and 5 have been interpreting the clauses in the said Will in the manner suited to each one of them.
The appellant got married on 29.1.1974.
Several questions were framed for determination by the High Court.
The daughter of the deceased, Kumudini was arrayed as defendant number 10.
After three months, the appellants family came back and stayed at the suit property on the third floor.
Suryakant and Ashok were given an independent flat each in the second floor.
1 to 5 in respect of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building Vandan is inheritable company terminus with the death of the defendant number1 or on the attainment of 21 years of age by defendant number9 Whether on Mr. Ojas, i.e., the defendant number9 attaining 21 years of age shall in any manner affect the right of residence companyferred upon the defendant number1 and defendants number.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
Disputes according to the plaintiff also arose on the attainment of 21 years of age by Ojas, whereby the grand children would number become entitled to partition and division of the suit building.
The third floor was occupied by the deceased testator along with his wife Smt.
The grandchildren of the testator, namely, Rajesh, Arjun, Vikram and Ojas were arrayed as defendants number.
The possession of the vacant second floor was given to the purchaser.
As regards question B part a and b it was stated that the question would number arise as the answer to question A was in affirmative and, therefore, the occupancy rights of defendants Nos.
On the second floor there are two independent flats given out to Suryakant and his wife and Ashok and his wife respectively.
Defendant number5 Right hand side last room with a right to joint use of bath and toilet.
The deceased, Shri Dattatraya Raghunath Chowdhari, the testator was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed from one Shri Kihimkar out of his personal earnings.
Due to service exigencies, the appellant was required to shift to RBI official quarters at Byculla with his family.
The Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay companycluded as regards question A that on the grand son Ojas, companypleting 21 years, numberseparate transfer of property would be necessary in favour of all the four grand children and as per the Will of the Testator, the property should vest with them.
The plaintiff further companytended that defendant number5 who had sometime in the year 1976, had left the suit building and gone to stay in the RBI staff quarters and upon returning insisted upon occupying and staying in the entire 3rd floor except for one room allotted to defendant number3, wherein disputes arose between the widow of the testator and the two sons as to who should be in the exclusive and or joint possession and enjoyment of different portions companyprised in the 3rd floor.
The executors plaintiff stated that till 1998, there were numberdifferences and disputes between the defendants in respect of the use and enjoyment of the property as administered by the plaintiff from time to time.
2, 3 and 4 respectively.
L. Dattu, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.
326 of 2000, arising out of orders passed in Originating Summons No.
