Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. Jamadar, J.
The Trustees of the Port of Bombay Being a statutory Corporation - Plaintiff
Versus
Sayed Abdul Hamid Mohammed Shah Kadri (since deceased) and anrs. – Defendants
Court Receiver’s Report No.353 Of 2021 In Suit No.517 of 1966, Court Receiver’s Report No. 353 & 345 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Court Receiver - Possession of Suit Building - Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure - Atul D. Sohni and Anr. V/s. B.M.Choksey and Ors., 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 258 - Anthony C. Leo V/s. Nandlal Bal Krishnan and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 376 - Meenakshi Saxena and Anr. V/s. ECGC Ltd. And Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 479 - Prem Lata Agarwal V/s. Lakshman Prasad Gupta and Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 440 - Sherali Khan Mohd. Manekia and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2013 SCC Online Bom 65
Fact of the Case:
The Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) leased a plot of land to M/s. Hoare Miller and Company Ltd. for 99 years. The lessee constructed a building known as 'Commerce House' on the plot. After a series of legal proceedings, the Court Receiver sought directions regarding the possession of the suit property, which was found to be occupied by a third party, Mr. Sahebrao Kadam. Mr. Kadam claimed possessory title to the suit building based on a Deed of Assignment dated 27 March 1946 and alleged continuous possession since then. The Court Receiver reported that Mr. Kadam had interfered with the possession of the Court and sought directions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit building remained custodia legis and the possession of the Court Receiver was prima facie violated. The Court held that the Court Receiver was required to be put back in possession of the suit building to discharge the duties cast in the previous order. The Court provided an opportunity to Mr. Sahebrao Kadam to establish his claim to possessory title over the suit building and his entitlement to continue to occupy the portions of the suit building by instituting appropriate proceedings within a specified period. If no order to protect Mr. Kadam's possession was passed, the Court Receiver would be free to take physical possession of the suit building and seek further directions.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit building remained custodia legis and the possession of the Court Receiver was violated. 2. Whether Mr. Sahebrao Kadam could establish his claim to possessory title over the suit building and his entitlement to continue to occupy the portions of the suit building.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the suit building remained custodia legis and the possession of the Court Receiver was prima facie violated. The Court held that the Court Receiver was required to be put back in possession of the suit building to discharge the duties cast in the previous order. The Court provided an opportunity to Mr. Sahebrao Kadam to establish his claim to possessory title over the suit building and his entitlement to continue to occupy the portions of the suit building by instituting appropriate proceedings within a specified period. If no order to protect Mr. Kadam's possession was passed, the Court Receiver would be free to take physical possession of the suit building and seek further directions.
Final Decision: The Court ordered the Court Receiver to take physical possession of the suit building, excluding a specific portion, and provided an opportunity to Mr. Sahebrao Kadam to establish his claim to possessory title over the suit building and his entitlement to continue to occupy the portions of the suit building by instituting appropriate proceedings within a specified period. If no order to protect Mr. Kadam's possession was passed, the Court Receiver would be free to take physical possession of the suit building and seek further directions.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this Report, the Court Receiver, inter alia, seeks the following directions :
“(a) What steps the Court Receiver should take as the third party viz. Mr. Sahebrao Kadam is found occupying of ground floor (east and west wing), 1st floor (east and west wing), 2nd floor (east and west wing), 3rd floor (east and west wing), 4th floor (east and west wing) suit premises situated at Commerce House, Ballard Estate, Currimbhoy Road, Mumbai and he is doing repairing work of entire building ?”
2. The litigation has a chequered history spanning over half a century. It reflects the vicissitudes of the litigation brought about by a variety of factors; inertia and inaction on the part of the parties not in less measure. Thus, I deem it in the fitness of things to summarize the nature and outcome of the proceedings leading to the situation which obtains today where a third party is found to be occupying a substantial portion of the suit property.
3. Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) – the Plaintiff, is the owner of plot of land bearing City Survey No.39 / 1187 admeasuring 1012 sq. yards (the suit plot). The Plaintiff had leased the said plot to M/s. Hoare Miller and Company Ltd. for a period of 99 years commencing from 21 June 1920. The lessee constructed a building on the demised land known as “Commerce House” (the suit building). The said plot and the suit building are hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’, wherever warranted.
4. Under a Deed of Assignment, the lessee assigned its interest in the suit property to Sayed Abdul Hamid Mohammad Shah Kadri – Original Defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.1(A) to 1(H) are the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1. The assignment was with the approval of the trustees of the MPT.
5. MPT instituted Suit No.517 of 1966 for the recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the demised premises. During the pendency of the said suit, Defendant No.1 was adjudged insolvent on 7 February 1967 and the Official Assignee was brought on record as Defendant No.2. A decree for possession and money was passed by this Court on 15 November 1967.
6. On 6 September, 1976, Chamber Summons No.239 of 1976 was taken out by the Plaintiff to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as Receiver in execution of the ex-parte decree dated 15 November 1967. By an order dated 6 September 1976, the said Chamber Summons was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Court Receiver came to be appointed as Receiver in execution.
7. On 21 June 1984, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Court Receiver to handover possession of the suit property to MPT – the decree holder after a period of one month thereof. In the meanwhile, the legal representatives of the judgment debtor were granted permission to remove the structures which were built on the suit plot. The Receiver was directed to handover the property to the decree holder with the superstructure, if the suit building was not removed.
8. The Defendants challenged the said order in Appeal No.612 of 1984. By a judgment and order dated 24 November 1987, the Division Bench set aside the said order. The Division Bench observed that the Court Receiver was appointed only as a Receiver to safeguard the property and to pay the rent and taxes and no more. If the decree holder wanted possession, they would only do so by resorting to execution proceedings under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Since no possession warrant was issued in execution of the decree, possession could not be handed over to the decree holder. The Court Receiver came to be reappointed as the Receiver. The Report of the Court Receiver and the Chamber Summons taken out by the Decree holder were remanded back to the learned Single Judge for being disposed of in accordance with law.
9. On 4 December 2002, Court Receiver’s Report dated 7 October 2002 came to be disposed of with a direction to the Court Receiver to take steps to execute the decree in accordance with law. In a fu
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit building remained custodia legis and the possession of the Court Receiver was prima facie violated. The Court provided an opportunity....
The court ruled that a trial court may appoint a receiver in a suit for injunction to prevent potential chaos, especially when possession claims are contested, without requiring a specific applicatio....
A mortgagee, under Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, is entitled to seek recovery of possession from a gratuitous licensee, even without prior possession, and the extent of inquiry into the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the legal principles regarding the appointment of a receiver, permissive possession, and the circumstances under which possessi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the City Civil Court had no authority in law to entertain an application in a disposed of suit against which an appeal had already been pendin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a Receiver for a property dispute, based on the failure of the Defendant to substantiate his claim and the wastage....
Settled possession cannot be deemed unlawful solely due to resignation; eviction requires due process of law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
