Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain, J.
M/s. Shaikh Constructions (deleted since deceased) - Applicant
Versus
Romell Housing LLP and ors. – Defendants
Interim Application No.1767 of 2020 In Suit No.367 of 2023, Interim Application (L) No.31242 of 2025 In Suit No.158 of 2024, Interim Application (L) No.31248 of 2025 In Suit No.502 of 2023
Decided On : 03-11- 2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Adverse Possession
Act Referred
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.6
MAHARASHTRA STAMP ACT : S.34
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.17
Headnote
(B) Pleadings - A plaint must adequately plead all material facts necessary for establishing a claim, especially when adverse possession is involved. Ambiguities in the status of ownership weaken the claim. (Paras 115-122)
(C) Interim Relief - For interim relief to be granted, a prima facie case must be established, which includes showing a cause of action. Without clear pleadings showing adverse possession, the request for interim relief fails. (Paras 149-150)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased K.N. Shaikh, claiming ownership through adverse possession over a property historically occupied by K.N. Shaikh since the 1975 tenancy agreement. The defendants contest this claim based on later property transactions executed post-2016, alleging the documents executed by K.N. Shaikh were forged and invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a clear cause of action for the claim of adverse possession based on the insufficient pleadings, thereby rejecting the interim application.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated adverse possession, the legal implications of ownership transfer through the alleged invalid documents, and the existence of a cause of action for interim relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere long possession cannot equate to title by adverse possession; factual and legal requirements must be adequately pled to succeed. The failure to establish this led to the dismissal of the interim applications.
Result: All three interim applications dismissed for lack of cause of action, but ad-interim orders maintained for two weeks to facilitate necessary arrangements.
For the Applicant :Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Sawant, Ms.Pallavi Bali, Mr. Laxman Jain and Ms. Garima Mahrotra
For the Defendant :Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Drupad Patil & Merlyn Dias Mr. Rajat Jain i/by M. M. Legal Associates Mr. N.C. Pawar, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay present.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case details and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. description of historical documentation and property details (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. chronology of events leading to the current dispute (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. plaintiff's claims on adverse possession (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. examination of authenticity of contested documents (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. arguments against the defendant's claims (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. issues regarding possession and proper procedure (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. deconstructing the legality of property transactions (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. issues of fraud and false representation (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. court's observations regarding forgery and legal follow-ups (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 11. final analysis of potential fraud and decision procedural issues (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1.At the outset, learned counsel for all the parties state that the facts in all the three interim applications in three different suits are similar and therefore, lead matter be taken as Interim Application No.1767 of 2020 in Suit No.367 of 2023. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of all three interim applications filed in different suits, I have considered said Suit No.367 of 2023 and interim application filed therein as a lead matter and the arguments by all the parties were also advanced on this basis, except reference to some additional documents/pleadings in other suits which parties have relied upon in the course of the hearing.
2. This application is taken out by the plaintiffs seeking following reliefs :-
“a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 by themselves, their respective partners, representatives, agents, servants and any third persons claiming through it be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner seeking to enforce or disturb the Plaintiffs/Applicants use, possession and occupation of the said Property;
b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, appointed as a Receiver of the said property (pursuant to the Order in Criminal Writ Petition No.3214 of 2017) be directed to hand back the possession of the said property to the Plaintiffs/Applicants;
c) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer clause (b)above, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, be continued
(i) as a Receiver of the said property, and
(ii) be further pleased the Plaintiffs/Applicants be appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver with all requisite rights and powers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ;
d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order and injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their respective partners, representatives, agents, servants and any third persons claiming through it be from or in any manner acting upon or using or creating any Agreements/documents in favour of any third party based on the documents herein:
i) Agreement for Sale-1 dated 30th December, 2006 (Exhibit 'E'to the Plaint),
ii) Purportedly Agreement for Sale-2 dated 30th December, 2006, Confirmation Deed dated 9th April, 2008, Rectification Deed dated 13th June, 2008, (as mentioned in Recital O & U(iii) of the first Indenture of Conveyance and Recital N & S(iii) of the second Indenture of Conveyance both dated 31 March, 2017), iii) Two Deed of Conveyances dated 31st March, 2017 with respect to said Property (Exhibit 'F' & 'F-1' to the Plaint),
iv) Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 19th May, 2010 (Exhibit 'M' to the Plaint),
v) General Power of Attorney dated 19th May, 2010 (Exhibit 'L' to the Plaint),
vi) Two Deeds of Assignment of Possession and Possessory Title dated 31st December, 2016 (Exhibit 'J' & 'K' to the Plaint),
vii) Purportedly Letter of physical possession dated 11th April, 2017 was addressed by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1
