Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Sale of Inherited Property Blocked Amid Family Feud

Updated
Mar 16, 2026 3:40 PM
bombay-high-court-sale-of-inherited-property-blocked-amid-family-feud

Here's a breakdown of a recent court case involving property rights, family disagreements, and legal complexities in Pune.

The People Involved

The case involves the Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (TFCI) and the Khedkar family. Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar, along with her family, is challenging the actions taken by TFCI regarding a property in Pune.

What Started the Disagreement?

TFCI had given financial help to Aishwarya Regency LLP, where Aishwarya's parents were partners. When payments were missed, TFCI took steps to take back the property under a law that allows banks to take over property used as security for a loan.

Timeline of the Legal Dispute

  • December 14, 2023: Aishwarya's request to temporarily stop the property's sale was denied by the first court.
  • January 24, 2025: A higher court reversed this decision, protecting Aishwarya's claim to the property until the final decision is made.
  • January 28, 2025: Despite the court's order, TFCI went ahead and sold the property to Eastman Garments Pvt. Ltd.

The Family's Argument

Aishwarya claims that the property is a family inheritance, giving her a rightful share. Her parents had used the property as a guarantee for a loan without asking her. The court recognized her interest as a co-owner, which needed to be protected.

TFCI's Point of View

TFCI argued that the property was used as security for unpaid loans, so they had the right to sell it. They said that the legal actions by Aishwarya and her family were just ways to delay paying back the loan.

Court's Decision

Judge N.J. Jamadar ruled in favor of Aishwarya, recognizing her rights as a co-owner. The court noted that the sale to Eastman Garments, which happened after the court's order, was not valid. The judge emphasized that actions taken against court orders cannot be accepted.

Key Points

  • The court supported Aishwarya's claim that the property was a family inheritance, stopping any sale without her consent.
  • Actions that go against court orders, like the sale to Eastman Garments, are considered illegal.
  • The case shows the complexities of property rights mixed with family and financial conflicts.

The court's decision blocked the sale of the property, recognizing Aishwarya's rights as a co-owner and invalidating the sale to Eastman Garments.

Tags:
Property Rights
Family Law
Financial Disagreements