JUDGMENT :

S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

1. This is an appeal from an Order and Judgment dated 7th August 2015 (“Impugned Judgment”), by which a Single Judge of this Court decreed Suit No. 1342 of 2003 (“Suit”).

2. The Suit was filed by Smt. Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma (Pushpalata) (Original Plaintiff in the Suit and Respondent No.1 in the present Appeal) against (i) Smt. Brij Madanlal Sharma (Brij) (Original Defendant in the Suit and Appellant No.1 in the present Appeal), (ii) Madanlal Nanakchand Sharma (Madanlal), (Original Defendant No.2/deceased husband of Brij) and (iii) Ebasco Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. (EFCPL) (Original Defendant No.3 in the Suit and Appellant No.3 in the present Appeal), inter alia for a declaration of ownership and a direction to handover possession of the suit premises, being Flat Nos.1 and 2 together with a garage and servants’ quarters on the ground floor of the building known as Indrayani, situated at Sophia College Lane, 61-D, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 026 (“Suit Premises”). The suit premises is described in paragraph 2 of the Plaint.

3. Since Madanlal (husband of Brij) passed away on 4th June 2013, before his cross-examination could be completed, by an order dated 5th August 2013 passed by the Addl. Registrar O.S. / Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master in Chamber Order (L.) No. 399 of 2013, his heirs (other than Brij) i.e. his son – Ajay Madanlal Sharma (Ajay) and daughter – Rekha Madanlal Sharma (Rekha) were brought on record and joined as Defendant Nos.2(a) and 2(b) respectively in the Suit. Ajay is Appellant No.2 in the present Appeal, and Rekha has declined to file any Appeal and did not enter any appearance before us either in person or through an Advocate. As stated aforesaid, the wife of Madanlal i.e. Brij was already on record in the Suit.

4. The entire dispute in this Suit pertains to ownership of the Suit Premises. There is no dispute that the Suit Premises are owned by one Pushpa S. Sharma, and that the share certificates of the Suit Premises stand in her name. Both Brij Madanlal Sharma -Appellant No.1 and Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma claim to be Pushpa S. Sharma, and to have purchased the Suit Premises in 1970. Accordingly, the central dispute in both the Suit and the Appeal is whether Brij Madanlal Sharma Appellant No.1 or Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma -Respondent No.1 is Pushpa S. Sharma.

5. At this juncture and at the outset we would like to state that for reasons more particularly set out hereinafter the case of Appellants – Brij, Ajay and EFPCL is one that is dishonest and false. The Ld. Single Judge has in our opinion rightly decreed the Suit. Brij, Ajay and EFPCL have put up this totally false, bogus and dishonest case in order to usurp the Suit Premises.

6. The operative portion of the Impugned Judgment is extracted below:

“147. Hence the following order.

1. The Plaintiff is declared to be the owner of the suit premises being Flat Nos.1 and 2 on the ground floor and a garage and servants' quarters in building Indrayani situate at Sophia College Lane, 61-D, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. It is declared that the Defendants have no right, title and interest in the above suit premises or in the share certificate bearing No.7 for share Nos.31 to 35 which has been issued in the name of the Plaintiff, Pushpa S Sharma.

2. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to be handed over and the Defendants shall handover the share certificate of the above suit premises taken by Madanlal from the then secretary of the society on 20th February, 1984 to the Plaintiff.

3. The Defendants shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff within 8 weeks from today.

4. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to mesne profits on account of the wrongful occupation of the Defendants in the suit premises. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to pursue her claim for mesne profits before the Commissioner for taking accounts in accordance with the rules of this Court in that behalf.

5. The Defendants shall p