High Court Denies Interim Relief to Real Estate Baron’s Daughter in Estate Dispute
The Bombay High Court has denied interim relief to Sabita Rajesh Narang, the daughter of the late real estate magnate Gopal Lachmandas Raheja, in her legal battle with her brother, Sandeep G Raheja, over their father’s estate. A single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav rejected Narang’s plea for the appointment of an administrator to manage and control the properties, assets, and businesses of the Gopal Raheja Group companies. The court also restrained her brother and other directors from selling, transferring, or creating any encumbrance or third-party rights in the assets and properties of the 26 companies.
Narang had approached the High Court in August 2014, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to one-fourth share in her late father’s estate as per a 1995-96 family arrangement. This arrangement, especially in view of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, recognizes equal rights of daughters, like sons, in joint family properties. Narang sought the partition of the properties and assets, including the businesses and entities owned by the Gopal L Raheja Group, and claimed one-fourth share in the entire estate as a coparcener.
Sandeep Raheja opposed his sister’s plea on multiple grounds. According to the 1992 oral family arrangement, all their family members, including Gopal Raheja, had transferred their shares and interest in the Gopal Raheja Group companies to him, his wife, and children. In return, substantial assets were transferred to Narang and their other sister, Sonali Nimesh Arora, Sandeep Raheja claimed.
While rejecting Narang’s plea for interim orders, Justice Jadhav noted that she had not specifically denied the receipt of the assets, which included both movable and immovable properties. The court also stated that though Narang had claimed a share in her late father’s estate as a coparcener, it was not clear whether the Gopal L Raheja Hindu Undivided Family referred to in the 1995-96 family arrangement was indeed the Gopal L Raheja Group. Narang would have to prove that the terms referred to the group by adducing evidence, and only then could its properties, assets, and businesses be considered coparcenary properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family.
The judge further stated that based on the material available before the court, it could not be said prima facie that the Hindu Undivided Family referred to the group, and therefore her claim of coparcenary rights could not be accepted at this stage. The court also refused to grant Narang’s plea to allow her participation in the management and control of the Gopal L Raheja Group companies and firms, noting that she was neither a shareholder nor a director of those companies.
‘Once it is seen that the plaintiff (Narang) is neither a shareholder nor a director of the defendant nos 7 to 32 (group companies) entities, then unless and until the plaintiff proves her case and succeeds in proving her case, her case cannot be considered to interfere and meddle with the operations of the defendant – companies/entities,’ Justice Jadhav said.
The court also noted that there was no threat to the plaintiff’s claim because the companies were all going concerns and operating in the public domain, either as private limited companies or limited liability partnerships.
