By an order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by this court, two issues were framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Notice of Motion NO. 1157 of 2011. In view of the issues framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be tried as jurisdictional issue, both parties were given opportunity to lead oral evidence on the jurisdictional issues framed by this court. Learned counsel have addressed on those issues which are answered by this court in the later part of the judgment.

2. Plaintiff is the brother of defendant no.1. defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the plaintiff, defendant nos. 2 and 3 have been impleaded as party defendants as they were unlawfully claiming their purported respective rights and/or claims in the suit property consisting of immoveable property situated in Mumbai and described in Ex.A to A2 of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff and the 1st defendants are the sons of Mr. Lachmandas S.Aswani who died intestate at Mumbai on 18th October, 1985 leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendant no.1, wife of the said deceased and three married daughters. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was the property of the said deceased Mr. Lachmandas at the time of his death on 18th October, 1985 and the same then devolved upon his legal heirs including plaintiff and defendant no.1. Dispute arose between the legal heirs after demise of the said deceased in respect of the suit property which dispute was referred to arbitration. On 15th April, 1986 the learned arbitrator made a consent award which award was filed in this court on 9th September, 1991 and consent decree was passed in terms of the said consent award.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that till 1962, one Mr.Joseph Henry Pereira was the owner of the suit property which devolved upon his son Mr.Noel Richard Pereira upon the death of the said Mr.Joseph Henry Pereira in the year 1962. In the month of November 1963, the said Mr.Noel Pereira granted three plots of land forming the suit property together with the structures standing thereon by executing three lease deeds all dated 27th November, 1963 to Mr.Lachmandas S.Aswani for 98 years.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 2004, the plaintiff saw a board of Dheeraj Constructions put up on the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said leases were not terminated by any of the parties and were subsisting and in force and were binding upon the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of September, 2004, plaintiff learnt that the name of his father was not to be found recorded in the property card pertaining to the suit property and the name of one Mr.Yusuf Ahmed was recorded as the owner in the property card in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff thereafter made enquiries with the office of the Sub-Registrar of assurances by writing letters, sending notices in the year 2004 and 2005 and obtained copies of some of the documents executed between Mr.Noel Pereira and Mr.Yusuf Ahmed in respect of the suit property.

6. The plaintiff thereafter made an application to enter his name as lessee in the property card which request was refused by the City Survey Office. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superintendent of Land Records being Appeal (58 of 2007). Superintendent of Land Records entered the name of the deceased as lessee of the suit property. Copy of the said order was received by the plaintiff on 31st May, 2008. Defendant no.3 filed appeal (264 of 2009) before the Superintendent of Land Records and impugned the order dated 31st May, 2008. Defendant no.3 relied upon a Deed of Conveyance dated 17th January, 2007 executed by Mr.Yusuf Ahmed in favour of defendant no.3 conveying the reversionary rights of the said deceased Mr.Lachmandas S.Aswani in favour of defendant no.3. The defendant no.3 succeeded in Appeal (264 of 2009) and got it