In a significant development in a long-running family property battle among the Nevatia brothers, the Bombay High Court has rejected an application by Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia to dismiss a civil suit filed by his brother Shishir Balkrishna Nevatia seeking administration of their late parents’ estates.
Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, in a detailed judgment pronounced on April 8, 2026, held that the suit (Suit No. 630 of 2015) is primarily an administration suit and is not barred by limitation. The court dismissed Interim Application (L) No. 32712 of 2023 filed by Dileep Nevatia under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clearing the way for a full trial on merits.
Background of the Dispute
The suit concerns the estates of the late Balkrishna Nevatia (father, who passed away on August 13, 2005) and his wife (mother, who died on June 26, 2011). The Nevatia family is associated with the jewellery business, with Shishir Nevatia known as the chairman of Sunjewels.
Shishir Nevatia filed the suit in March 2015 seeking several reliefs, including:
- A declaration that the mother’s estate should be administered and distributed as per her last Will dated June 17, 2009 (probate proceedings are already pending in a separate testamentary suit).
- In the alternative, appointment of an administrator for both parents’ estates on the basis of intestacy.
- Declaration of various properties (listed in exhibits to the plaint) as part of the parental estates.
- Directions to hand over properties allegedly in the possession of Dileep Nevatia and other defendants (including Defendant Nos. 1 to 4) to the court-appointed administrators (Defendant Nos. 8 and 9, the executors named in the mother’s Will).
- Recovery of ₹86.11 crore plus interest as damages for alleged intermeddling, fraudulent disposal, and appropriation of estate assets by the defendants.
Dileep Nevatia, appearing as a party-in-person (Defendant No. 1 and 4), strongly opposed the suit. He argued that the plaint disclosed causes of action dating back to 1990, 1996, 1999, and 2000 (referring to earlier family arrangements, suits filed by the parents, and other events). He contended that the suit for declarations, injunction, possession, and damages was hopelessly barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (3 years for declaration and 12 years for possession based on title).
He further submitted that the suit amounted to an abuse of process, as related issues had been litigated in earlier proceedings, including Suit No. 3598 of 1996 filed by the mother and other suits involving the Shashi Deep property and eviction matters.
Court’s Key Reasoning
Justice Pooniwalla held that the suit is essentially an administration suit by a legal heir for distribution of the deceased parents’ estates. Such suits attract Article 106 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 12-year limitation period from the date the legacy or distributive share becomes payable or deliverable (generally one year after the death of the testator/intestate under Section 337 of the Indian Succession Act).
- Father died in 2005 and mother in 2011; the suit was filed in 2015 — well within the 12-year window.
- Even if certain ancillary reliefs (such as specific declarations or damages) might arguably face limitation issues, the plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11. The entire plaint must survive or fail together. Since the core administration reliefs are within time, the suit proceeds.
- Earlier suits filed by the parents involved different causes of action and different parties; they do not render the present suit an abuse of process.
- The issue of when the plaintiff gained knowledge of certain facts involves disputed questions that require trial and cannot be decided summarily at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.
The court distinguished judgments cited by Dileep Nevatia (including cases on declaration suits and consequential reliefs) and relied on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Sajanbir Singh Anand vs. Raminder Kaur Anand (2018) to affirm the limitation applicable to administration suits.
No order as to costs was passed.
What Happens Next
The main suit will now proceed to trial. The Court Receiver remains involved in the matter. The parallel testamentary proceedings for probate of the mother’s Will (Testamentary Suit No. 75 of 2014) continue separately.
This ruling underscores that in family estate disputes, courts are reluctant to dismiss administration suits at the threshold when the primary relief for distribution of shares among heirs falls within the longer 12-year limitation period.
The Nevatia family dispute highlights the complexities that often arise in high-value business families when settling parental estates involving multiple immovable properties, alleged intermeddling claims, and overlapping earlier litigations.
Also Read: Housing Society Treated as Promoter in Redevelopment Dispute If It Shares..
