Fight over Altamount Road flat: HC rejects filmmaker Ramesh Sippy’s plea

The Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by film producer-cum-director Ramesh Sippy, seeking the appointment of a court receiver on a flat in Shree Vijaya Bhavan at Altamont Road, 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt Ltd and 27 films produced by the production house. The appointment of a court receiver for a property would mean that the court becomes the caretaker of that property and no one else enjoys the title to it.

The filmmaker had filed the plea in his pending suit, claiming 1/5th share in the entire estate of his father, renowned film producer GP Sippy. Through the interim plea, he had sought appointment of the court receiver on flat no 5/A in Shree Vijaya Bhavan, the shares and rights in the 27 films.

Sippy filed the suit last year, claiming that after the death of his father in December 2007 and his mother Mohini Sippy in June 2010, he was entitled to 1/5th share in their estate, along with the legal heirs of his four siblings – three brothers and a married sister.

He said his father made a will and bequeathed his entire estate to their mother, who obtained letters of administration to administer the estate. Later, she too made a will and bequeathed the property to his deceased brother Suresh.

Ramesh Sippy added that since Suresh had in December 2016 executed an affidavit relinquishing all the rights devolved on him through his mother’s will, the properties are required to be distributed equally amongst the siblings or their legal heirs.

He filed the interim plea for the appointment of a court receiver on flat no. 5/A of Shree Vijaya Bhavan, claiming that two of his nephews were illegally and exclusively enjoying the estate of his deceased father. The plea says that the nephews had shown their intention to deny him his 1/5th share in the flat and other movable and immovable assets of the deceased, including the 27 cinematograph films and shares of the deceased held in defendant No.11 – the company.

A single judge bench of justice Manish Pitale, however, found no force in the submissions, as the court noted that neither the will executed by the filmmaker’s late mother nor the affidavit of his brother Suresh were registered documents. “There is hardly any material placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff to show as to in what manner flat 5/A is being dealt with by the defendant Nos.9 and 10 [Ramesh Sippy’s nephews], which could give rise to any apprehension on behalf of the plaintiff. No case is made out for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the said flat,” said the court.