1. This is a unique suit filed by the plaintiff who is shown to be Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma @ Pushpa S. Sharma (Pushpa) against the defendants who were two individuals and a limited company. Defendant No.1 is shown to be Brij Madanlal Sharma but also claims to be Pushpa S. Sharma / Pushpa Singh Sharma, (Brij). Her husband Madanlal since expired, was defendant No.2 and a company of which Madanlal is stated to be a director, is defendant No.3. Madanlal has expired and his son and daughter are brought on record as his heirs as defendant No.2a and 2b aside from Brij who has continued to be defendant No.1. The case of all the defendants is identical as shall be seen presently.

2. The plaintiff has been represented by the same advocate throughout. The defendants have filed a joint written statement. They were represented by the same advocate all through until the last date of the trial including the stage of recording of cross examination. The advocate who earlier represented all the defendants ceased to appear at the time of the hearing of the arguments. A new advocate sought to appear for defendant Nos.2a and 3 only at the time of the hearing of arguments. Defendant No.2a and 2b remained present in Court. Defendant No.1 remained absent and so was purportedly shown not to have been represented. However, the arguments of the advocate for defendant No.2a and 3 have actually been the arguments on behalf of all the defendants since their case is the same. These arguments are evidently in support of the case of defendant No.1 which was the same in the evidence of both defendant Nos.1 and 2. Upon the death of defendant No.2, his children would have the same case. Defendant No.3 is represented, but no separate case of defendant No.3 is shown at any stage. An application for adjournment was made by defendant No.2a on behalf of defendant No.1 on the ground of her illness upon a medical certificate of a doctor unsubstantiated by any medical record of illness and has been rejected. The arguments on behalf of all the parties have been heard. In fact the arguments of the advocate appearing on behalf of defendant No.2a and 3 pertain essentially to the case of defendants No.1 as shall be seen presently. After all the arguments were heard and case of each party was seen, defendant No.1 was specifically directed to remain present in Court as the Court desired to put her certain questions and which she did as shall also be seen presently.

3. Pushpa's case in the plaint is that she is a non resident of India residing in Dubai with her husband Sohanlal Sharma (Sohanlal). She claims to be the owner of the suit premises being Flat Nos.1 and 2 on the ground floor and a garage and servants' quarters (suit flat) in building Indrayani situate at Sophia College Lane, 61-D, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. She claims to be a member of the said society. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are sisters-in-law, defendant No.1 being the wife of brother of the plaintiff's husband (Sohanlal). The said brother is defendant No.2. (Madanlal)

4. Brij also claims to be the owner of the suit premises and a member of the aforesaid society. She claims membership on the premise that she has purchased the flat in her maiden name of Pushpa S. Sharma which is Pushpa Singh Sharma.

5. Hence the purchase of the suit flat has not been denied. The issue of share certificate in the name of Pushpa S. Sharma is also not denied. Who is Pushpa S. Sharma is to be determined and is in dispute. Both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 claim to be Pushpa S. Sharma . Pushpa claims that Pushpa is her maiden name, 'S' stands for Sohanlal, her husband and Sharma is her marital surname. Brij claims that Pushpa is her maiden name. Singh is her other name and Sharma is her marital surname. Pushpa, upon marriage, came to be called Pushpalata. Brij is, before marriage, stated to be Pushpa Singh.

6. The suit flat has been purchased upon payment of consideration in cash. The agreement of purchase w