JUDGMENT :-Admit. Leamed counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant had already filed a compilation of documents for consideration of this Court. By consent of the parties, the matter is accordingly heard finally.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17th July, 2013 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant seeks relief of declaration that the respondents have forcibly and unlawfully without prior permission of the concerned authorities demolished the compound wall and barbed wire fencing around the suit property described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint admeasuring 41,370.70 sq. meters situated at CTS Nos.8A and 8B at Parigh Khadri, TalukaAndheri, B.S.D., L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (W), Bombay-400 070. The appellant also prayed for declaration that the appellant was entitled for restoration of compound wall and barbed wire fencing. The suit was resisted by the respondents.

3. It was the case of the appellant (original plaintiff) that the appellant had purchased the suit property by an agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 admeasuring 10,500 sq. mtrs. for consideration. It was the case of the appellant that name of the appellant was recorded and reflected in the revenue records and CTS Nos.8A and 8B were also reflected in the enquiry register. On 5th August, 2003, the appellant filed a Suit before the City Civil Court, Bombay.

4. The respondent no.l Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authorities (MMRDA) filed a written statement before the Trial Court and pleaded that the suit property belonged to the Government of Maharashtra. It was referred in the memo issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra dated 11th January, 1979 whereby the Government had sanctioned the suit land bearing Survey No.4 (part) under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 admeasuring 8.8537 hectares out of survey no.4 part of parighkhar to MMRDA. Pursuant to the said memo, the said land was legally transferred by the Government to MMRDA and physical possession there of was taken on 22nd July, 1984. The MMRDA placed reliance on the several documents and the evidence in support of its submission and pleaded that the appellant has committed a fraud on the Court. The other respondents also opposed the suit before the Trial Court. The appellant examined himself as one of the witnesses. In the evidence before the Trial Court, the appellant placed reliance on the agreement for sale dated 22nd September, 1958 in respect of the said land alleged to have been executed between the appellant and one Mr.Razzak Ali S/o. Sadique Hussain and Mr. Zakir Hussain Karimulla S/o. Sadique Hussain as seller and the appellant as a purchaser.

5. After considering the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues.

"1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit premises i.e. Plot bearing C.T.S. No.3988?

2. Does he further proves that he erected the fencing lawfully?

3. It is proved by the Plaintiff that Defendants have unlawfully demolished the compound wall and barbed wire fencing?

4. Whether the plaintiff entitled to the relief of restoration of the compound wall and barbed wire fencing?

5. Whether the plaintiffis entitled to the relief of declaration, preventive injunction and mandatory injunction?

6. What order and Decree?"

6. In so far as the issue about the ownership of the suit premises of the plaintiff is concerned, the learned Trial Judge answered the said issue in the negative and held that the plaintiff had not proved that he was owner of the suit premises. The Trial Court also answered the issue no.2 in the negative, whether the plaintiff had proved that he had erected the fencing lawfully. The Trial Court answered the other three issues in the negative i) whether it was proved by the plaintiff that the defendants had unlawfully demolished the compound wall and barbed wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document