31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1244 OF 2026 IN SUIT NO. 388 OF 2025 Rajshree Satish Karandikar … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Rajshree Satish Karandikar … Plaintiff V/s. Sajeev Suhas Karmarkar Son of Dr. Suhas Ramchandra Karmarkar … Defendant _______________________________________ Mr. Piyush Raheja a/w. Bhuvan Singh a/w. Shashwat Rai a/w. Mrinali Dave i/b. Keystone Partners for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Lizum Wangdi a/w. Amit Karkhanis a/w. Aniket Mokashi a/w. Anita Chikane for the Defendant _______________________________________ CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. DATE : 18th MARCH 2026 P. C.: 1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are siblings, the Plaintiff being the elder sister. Both are medical practitioners and citizens of the United States of America, where they presently reside. The present suit is instituted by the Plaintiff for administration of the estate of their deceased parents and for partition of the properties forming part thereof. The parties’ father, late Mr. Suhas Ramchandra Karmarkar, expired on 11th November 2003, and their mother, late Dr. Rajani Suhas Karmarkar, expired on 29th June 2022. ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar 2. Prior to the institution of the present suit, the Defendant had filed Testamentary Petition No. 3362 of 2024 seeking probate of an alleged last Will and Testament dated 17th May 2022 of the deceased mother. The Plaintiff has entered a caveat and filed an Affidavit-in-Support dated 17th February 2025, opposing the grant of probate and propounding an earlier Will dated 13th July 2017. The said proceedings now stand converted into a Testamentary Suit and are pending adjudication before this Court. 3. In respect of the estate of the deceased father, Letters of Administration were granted by this Court on 23rd December 2005 in favour of the deceased mother, who was appointed as the Administrator. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the administration of the estate has remained incomplete, inter alia, on the ground that the names of the legal heirs have not been reflected in the revenue and municipal records pertaining to the immovable properties forming part of the estate, particularly the properties situated at Mumbai and Pune, more fully described in the plaint. It is further the Plaintiff’s case that upon the demise of the deceased mother, no administrator has been appointed in respect of the estate of the deceased father. 4. Mr. Piyush Raheja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, has taken me through the pleadings. He submits that it is not in dispute that prior to the demise of the deceased father, the Hindu Undivided ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar Family (HUF) consisted of the deceased father and the parties herein, each having an undivided one-third share in the Mumbai property. Upon the demise of the deceased father, his one-third share is stated to have devolved equally upon the deceased mother, the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Consequently, according to the Plaintiff, the deceased mother became entitled to a one-ninth share, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant each held a four-ninth share in the Mumbai property. Insofar as the Pune property is concerned, it is submitted that upon the demise of the deceased father, the deceased mother, the Plaintiff and the Defendant each became entitled to an undivided one-third share therein. 5. It is further submitted that in or about 2010, the Plaintiff, allegedly acting under emotional pressure, executed a Release Deed relinquishing her one-ninth share in the Mumbai property in favour of the deceased mother, thereby reducing her share to one-third. It is, however, contended that by a subsequent Release Deed dated 12th October 2017, the deceased mother restored the said one-ninth share to the Plaintiff, thereby re-establishing her entitlement to a four-ninth share in the Mumbai property. 6. The Plaintiff further contends that in or about January 2020, the deceased mother, under coercion exerted by the Defendant, executed a conveyance transferring her one-ninth share in the Mumbai property in favour of the Defendant, thereby divesting herself of any right, title or ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar interest therein. 7. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant is presently in exclusive possession of both the Mumbai and Pune properties and has inducted third parties therein under leave and licence agreements without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, and is appropriating the entire licence fees to the exclusion of the Plaintiff. 8. On this basis, it is submitted by the Plaintiff that the Defendant has failed to account for the income derived from the properties and has refused to effect partition. The present Interim Application is, therefore, taken out seeking, inter alia, appointment of a Court Receiver, injunction against creation of third-party rights, and a direction to deposit the income derived from the said properties in this Court. 9. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant, submits that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, the cause of action, according to him, having arisen upon the demise of the deceased father in 2003. He submits that the estate stood duly administered by the deceased mother in accordance with an oral family arrangement, which was accepted and acted upon by the Plaintiff. 10. It is further contended by the Defendant that the Plaintiff has suppressed material facts, including receipt of a sum of USD 250,000 from ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar the deceased father during his lifetime and a further sum of USD 225,000 from the Defendant in or about 2010. According to the Defendant, the latter payment was made pursuant to an oral family arrangement in consideration of the Plaintiff relinquishing her share in the Mumbai property. 11. The Defendant disputes the validity of the alleged Release Deed of 2017 and contends that the Plaintiff had no subsisting share capable of being re-conveyed at that stage. 12. It is further submitted that the licence arrangements in respect of both properties were created by the deceased mother during her lifetime and only renewed thereafter by the Defendant, who has undertaken substantial expenditure towards maintenance and repairs of the Mumbai property. Mr. Kanade also states, on instructions, that the Defendant has no intention of creating third-party rights in the Mumbai and Pune properties. 13. Mr. Kanade has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 to contend that suppression of material facts disentitles a party from seeking equitable relief. 14. In rejoinder, Mr. Raheja fairly admits receipt of USD 225,000 but denies that the same was pursuant to any oral family arrangement, attributing the omission in the plaint to inadvertence on his clients’ part. ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar 15. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the deceased father expired in 2003 and the deceased mother expired in 2022. The present suit and Interim Application have been instituted only in October 2025. There is, prima facie, considerable delay in seeking interim reliefs, for which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. At this stage, such delay militates against the grant of discretionary interim relief. 16. The plea of limitation, as raised by the Defendant, involves mixed questions of fact and law and cannot be conclusively determined at this interlocutory stage without evidence. 17. It is, however, an admitted position that the Plaintiff received a sum of USD 225,000 from the Defendant in or about 2010. This fact finds no disclosure in the plaint. In my view, the receipt of such a substantial amount is a material fact, bearing directly on the nature of the transaction between the parties and the Defendant’s plea of an oral family arrangement. 18. The explanation of inadvertence is unpersuasive. A party seeking equitable relief is under an obligation to make a full and frank disclosure of all material facts. The omission in the present case is significant and cannot be lightly brushed aside. ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 31-IA-1244-2026 Rajashree Karandikar Vs. Sanjeev Karmarkar 19. In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out, at least prima facie, that there existed some form of an oral family arrangement, as contended by the Defendant. This is moreso since monies are paid by one party in lieu of the release of rights by the other in favour of a third-party and not the one from whom monies are received. This issue would necessarily fall for determination at trial upon appreciation of evidence. 20. The suppression of a material fact disentitles the Plaintiff from seeking equitable relief. The principle enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra) squarely applies. The Plaintiff, having failed to approach the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to the discretionary reliefs sought in the present Interim Application. 21. That apart, the statement made on behalf of the Defendant that no third-party rights shall be created in respect of the Mumbai and Pune properties, as well as the statement permitting the Plaintiff access to a portion of the Pune property, are noted and accepted by this Court. 22. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for grant of interim reliefs. 23. The Interim Application is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) Jyoti Pawar ------------------------------------- Order dated 18th March 2026 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2026.03.26 18:05:09 +0530