The legal dispute among well-known actor Dilip Kumar and his two brothers over property in Mumbai’s posh Pali Hill area may work into a long drawn battle as an affidavit has been lodged on his behalf before the Bombay High Court.
The actor’s wife Saira Banu filed the affidavit, she states that the brothers-Ahsan and Aslam – have no rights over the bungalow which was destroyed for renovation. Ahsan and Aslam, who occupied with their comrade at the iconic 48, Pali Hill bungalow till it was demolished in 2007, have approached the High Court seeking execution of an agreement made in the same year.
The 2007 agreement of 2007, Dilip Kumar was to provide accommodation of 1,200 sq. ft. flat to Ahsan, who is now 82, and 800 sq. ft. flat to Aslam, who is now 72. The need for agreement occurred as the brothers had rejected to give up the bungalow when Dilip Kumar wanted to reformulate it.
The legality for the bungalow and the plot were acquired by Dilip Kumar in 1953 from one Hasan Chamruddin, who had got the patch from the Khartoum Trust on a 999- year lease. Dilip Kumar was among the foremost in the Bollywood film industry to give Pali Hill celebrity status. The deal to reformulate the bungalow was made in 2006. The veteran actor had then came near to his brothers to vacate the bungalow to allow a builder start work. The brothers were stated to be opposed to it.
Ahsan and Aslam then talked to their sister-in-law Saira Banu who on altruistic grounds had taken the opening move to reconcile her two brothers-in- law, leading to the agreement in 2007.
It is not that Dilip Kumar has repudiated on his promise as the task has been retarded due to the legal dispute with the plot owners, Khatau Trust. In the affidavit, Dilip Kumar has said that he manged for their accommodation at Malad and also paid Rs.46 lac to the developer but his brother rejected to shift to Malad.
Ahsan and Aslam claimed in their legal suit, that the monthly payments has stopped later than December 2012 and recently they are confronting problems of accommodation as they have nowhere to live. Until now there is nothing on record to establish that the brothers are also co- proprietors of the bungalow.
Dilip Kumar also challenged his brothers to produce any papers which would show they resided with him on the terms of the leave and license. He stated that there was no legal binding to extend with the monthly payments.