The Plaintiff's failure to prove possession and the illegal transfer of possession during the appointment of the Court Receiver led to the dismissal of the suit and the direction to hand over possession to MHADA.

Headnote:
Plaintiff - Possession Dispute - - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 53A; Specific Relief Act, Section 38] - The court analyzed the Plaintiff's claim of possession in a property owned by MHADA. The Plaintiff relied on various documents to prove her possession, but MHADA challenged their authenticity. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove her possession and that the documents presented were false and bogus. The court also noted the illegal transfer of possession to a third party during the appointment of the Court Receiver. The court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim lacked legal basis and dismissed the suit, directing the Court Receiver to hand over possession to MHADA.
Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff claimed possession of a property owned by MHADA but failed to prove it. The court found that the Plaintiff's documents were false and that she had illegally transferred possession to a third party during the appointment of the Court Receiver.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Plaintiff's claim lacked legal basis and dismissed the suit, directing the Court Receiver to hand over possession to MHADA.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Plaintiff proved her possession, which the court found she failed to do.
Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff's failure to prove possession and the illegal transfer of possession during the appointment of the Court Receiver led to the dismissal of the suit and the direction to hand over possession to MHADA.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the Court Receiver to take possession of the property from whoever is found therein and hand it over to MHADA.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant- Plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing the Plaintiff's Suit, discharging the Court Receiver, who was appointed, pending the Suit and directing the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Maharasht ra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA), who are the first Defendant s in that Suit. The compilation of the entire record of the trial Court has been placed before the Court, including the oral and documentary evidence. Hence, this Appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. The suit was for protecting the Plaintiff's possession in the suit premises which is a room of MHADA bearing flat No.A-503 in Sat Aasara Co-operative Housing Society, which is constructed by MHADA.

3. The Plaintiff desires to protect her possession in respect of the suit premises. She must, therefore, essentially show possession of the suit premises. The Plaintiff relied on a letter /p avati, stated to be issued by MHADA under No.642 dated 14.12.1999 in respect of the suit premises being flat No.A-503. The Plaintiff relied upon two rent receipts stated to be issued by MHADA. The Plaintiff also relied upon a Deed of Assignment executed by one Shantaram Jadhav and the Plaintiff under an sufficiently stamped, unregistered but notorised agreement and a Power of Attorney issued by the said Jadhav in her favour. The Plaintiff further relied upon, a copy of her own letter dated 21.3.2001, which is stated to be sent to MHADA and received by MHADA by hand delivery as reflected in the stamp, initial and date.

4. Upon such documentary evidence, the Plaintiff sought to show her “possession” in respect of the suit premises. MHADA challenged each of these document s. It has been the case of MHADA that none of the document s shown to be of MHADA, were issued by MHADA and they were false and bogus document s. MHADA further contended that no allotment of the suit flat was made to Shantaram Jadhav and how he could agree to assign the suit flat to the Plaintiff is not shown.

5. Interestingly, the Plaintiff never showed a single independent document , aside from the aforesaid document s, to evince her possession for about three years prior to the suit that she claimed to be residing in the suit premises. The Plaintiff never produced a single electricity bill which would show her actual residence in the suit premises and the electricity consumed. She never produced the ration card, which would show the rations drawn by her. She never produced any election card, which would show her possession in the suit premises. Under these circumstances, the challenge to MHADA document s would be required to be seen.

6. The parties led oral and documentary evidence before the Court. The main issue for grant of relief sought by the Plaintiff was whether she proved her possession because only after the actual possession is proved, can the Court issue an injunction against any Defendant s protecting the Plaintiff's possession i.e. protecting the Plaintiff against dispossession.

7. The Plaintiff examined her Constituted Attorney, who, inter alia, deposed in his cross- examination that the Plaintiff has not obtained any permission from MHADA to enter into any transaction with Shantaram Jadhav and that besides the aforesaid document s, the Plaintiff had no other document s or correspondence from MHADA.

8. MHADA examined one of the officers. The affidavit of examination in chief of the the witness of MHADA does not show only a bare case that the Plaintiff's document s are false and bogus. The witness has shown how they are false and bogus. The initial pavati / let ter dated 14.12.1999 relied upon by the Plaintiff in the suit bearing No.642 is stated to be issued by MHADA. MHADA produced the outward register, showing Sr.No.642 . The entry is shown to be kept in the normal course of the conduct and business of MHADA. It shows a letter issued to a completely different par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document