IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharati H. Dangre, J.
JAYWANT INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. – Petitioner
Vs.
SANGEETA KEWALRAMANI – Respondent
Appeal from Order No. 270 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Injunction - Co-operative Housing Society - Specific Relief Act, Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, Municipal Corporation Act - 34, 37, 38 - 351 - 9 SCC 536 - 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 145 - 2012 4 Bom CR 450 - 2008 4 SCC 594 - 5577 of 2021 - The court discussed the plaintiff's continuous possession of the suit premises, the society's acceptance of maintenance charges, and the agreements between the Chief Promoter and the tenants. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff and upheld the injunction order, dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, owner of various premises in a building, filed a suit under sections 34, 37, and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, alleging exclusive ownership and possession of a private terrace. The society sought to dispossess the plaintiff, leading to the injunction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff based on continuous possession and society's acceptance of maintenance charges. The court upheld the injunction order, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the ownership and possession of the suit premises, the maintainability of the suit for injunction, and the society's objection to the plaintiff's possession after proposing building redevelopment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's continuous possession and society's acceptance of maintenance charges established a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, justifying the injunction order.
Final Decision: The court upheld the injunction order and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
Bharati H. Dangre, J.
1. The Appellant is a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. captioned as ‘Jaywant Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.’ and is a defendant in L.C. Suit No. 825 of 2019. The Appeal is instituted by the Appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 16-12-2020 passed by the City Civil Court, on an application taken out by the plaintiff in the suit, under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., which came to be allowed and an injunction order has been stormed against the defendants.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar for the Appellant and the learned Advocate Mr. Amogh Singh for respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff).
3. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Senior Advocate, I must refer to the proceedings between the parties.
The plaintiff, Sangeeta Kewalramani, owner of the various premises in the building known as ‘Jaywant Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.’ amongst other Unit Nos. 309, 310 and 311(T), situated at 63, Tardeo Road, Opp. SOBO Central Mall, Mumbai 34, instituted a suit under sections 34, 37 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action for instituting the suit was apparently, a notice issued by the Corporation under section 351 of the M.M.C. Act dated 11-12-2018 and the speaking order dated 9-3-2019 in respect of the suit premises, being Unit No. 311(T). The society was impleaded as defendant No. 3, whereas the Corporation and it’s Officer were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
4. The plaintiff pleaded her case that Rajan Kewalramani, her deceased husband, became owner of the suit premises vide agreement dated 24-9-1985 along with one Behram Darabshah Bhasania, the Chief Promoter of the proposed society, who executed a letter dated 16-2-1993 declaring that Rajan Kewalramani was the bona fide purchaser in respect of the premises, including the suit premises, which is an open terrace on the third floor of the defendant society. The specific case pleaded by the plaintiff is to the effect that she herself along with her family members, known as Kewalramani Group owned various galas/units in the defendant No. 3-society and the premises came to their ownership, through various agreements and upon the death of her husband, she along with her daughter and son, inherited the right to the suit premises. All other legal heirs executed a release deed in her favour, relinquishing their right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff and that is how, she became the sole and absolute owner of the suit premises.
It is pleaded that the plaintiff enjoyed the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the suit premises, without any inference or obstruction since 1985. It is her specific case that defendant No. 3-society was formed in the year 2001 and from 1985 to 2001, the Chief Promoter executed agreement of ownership in favour of her predecessor and no objection was ever raised about it’s right, title, use, occupation and possession and even after the formation of defendant No. 3-society, rather her right over the private terrace was recognized for the private use of the family, including gardening. The said premises are pleaded to be adjacent to the other galas belonging to Kewalramani being Nos. 309, 310 and 311 and always received a status as a private terrace. Apart, it is pleaded that the society has separate and distinct terrace above the third floor, which has been used as a common terrace and meetings of the society are held on the said common terrace.
The specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint is to the effect that the suit premises was always a private terrace in exclusive use and possession of the plaintiff ever since the building was constructed i.e. since 1985.
5. The plaintiff has made her case good by placing on record several documents, which included the payment of share application money, charge for maintenance of the suit premises since the formation of the society and the maintenance bills for Unit No. 311(T), indicating
Ashok Punjabi and Ors. vs. High Class Developers and Ors. (2012) 4 BomCR 450
Nahalchand Lallochand Private Limited vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous possession and society's acceptance of maintenance charges can establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff in a dispute ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession must be supported by evidence of open and hostile possession, and the balance of convenience in cases of interim....
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.