The suit regarding alienation of ancestral property is governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, allowing for a 12-year period, which was not adhered to, leading to its dismissal.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Defendant No.1-Condominium has filed the present Application seeking rejection of Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (the Code). According to Applicant-Defendant No.1, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same challenges Declaration dated 1 October 2004 and Deeds of Apartment dated 4 November 2004, 6 November 2004, 10 November 2004 and 6 October 2005 and Deeds of Transfer dated 1 February 2005.

2) Plaintiffs’ case as pleaded in the Plaint is that they are children of late Mr. Sharad Madhavrao Gangla. By an Indenture dated 22 March 1921, Bombay Improvement Trust granted lease of land admeasuring 732.45 sq.mtrs bearing Plot No.61, Scheme No.4 of Gamdevi Estate and Cadastral Survey No.1655 of Girgaon Division together with building thereon known as ‘Mantri Building’ comprising of ground plus two upper floors and having 17 units (16 residential units and one commercial unit) situated at Street No.56, Gamdevi Road, Mumbai-400 007 in favour of Mr. Ramchandra Bhaskar Mantri. The lease was granted for a term of 999 years commencing from 4 November 1916. By Deed of Assignment dated 18 May 1925, said Mr. Ramchandra Bhaskar Mantri and others assigned and transferred leasehold rights in the land and the building in favour of Plaintiffs grandfather Mr. Madhavrao Vithalrao Gangla.

3) According to the Plaintiff, the land and the building was always joint family property and under Deed of Partition dated 18 December 1940 executed between great grandfather (late Vithalrao Sambhaji Gangla), grandfather (late Madhavrao Gangla) and father of the Plaintiffs (Sharad Gangla) and other family members, undivided half share and interest in the entire land and building was granted in favour of Plaintiffs’ great grandfather, grandfather and father. According to the Plaintiffs, after the death of great grandfather in the year 1945, the grandfather and father of the Plaintiffs became jointly entitled to half share in the land and the building, which continued to remain a joint family property. According to the Plaintiffs, after they were born in the year 1962 (Plaintiff No.2), 1963 (Plaintiff No.3) and 1974 (Plaintiff No.1), they became entitled to share in the joint family property by birth. After the death of the Plaintiffs grandfather in the year 1977, according to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 alongwith his father became entitled to half share in the land and the building.

4) It appears that, 16 out of the 17 units in Mantri Building were occupied by tenants. Defendant Nos.2 to 31 and their predecessor in title were the tenants in respect of the Mantri Building. Plaintiff’s father-Sharad Madhavrao Gangla agreed to convert tenancies into ownership rights and accordingly executed Declaration in terms of Form-A under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAO Act) on 1 October 2004 thereby purportedly conferring ownership rights in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 31. According to the Plaintiffs, the said act of execution of Declaration dated 1 October 2004 is performed by their father without the knowledge and consent of Plaintiffs, who are entitled to shares in the land and building. According to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 has 50% share in the land and building and without his consent, Declaration dated 1 October 2004 could not have been executed. According to the Plaintiffs, without their knowledge and consent, their father also executed Deeds of Apartment with Defendant Nos.2 to 28 and Deeds of Transfer with Defendant Nos.29, 30 and 31 portraying himself as the sole owner. This is how in