Admissions in written statement, including implied ones from claims of deception by impersonator and information plaintiff is real owner, justify decree under Order XII Rule 6 declaring deeds void without trial, despite forgery allegations.

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 12^th September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thane, on an Application (Exhibit 19) in RCS No. 240 of 2023, whereby the said Application preferred by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the background facts can be stated as under:

3.1 For the sake of convenience and clarity the parties are hereinter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed in the Suit.

3.2 The Plaintiff is the original allottee of a tenement, bearing No. A-1/62/2, Sector 21, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai (“the suit premises”), developed by CIDCO (D1). The Plaintiff has been in lawful possession and occupation of the suit premises. Occupants of the building formed a society, A-1 Type Apartment Owners Association (D3).

3.3 The Plaintiff asserts, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 with intent to defraud the Plaintiff, prepared false and forged documents. Defendant No. 3- society on the basis of such false and forged documents, issued a NOC for registration of the Deed of Apartment. On the basis of such forged document and NOC, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 applied to CIDCO (D1) for registration of the Deed of Apartment. Somebody impersonated the Plaintiff and a false and forged Deed of Apartment dated 10^th October 2016, was got executed and registered. On the strength of the said Deed of Apartment dated 10^th October 2016, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 executed another forged Conveyance Deed dated 30^th November 2016, by making somebody impersonate Plaintiff before the Registrar of Assurances. Under the said Conveyanc Deed the suit premises was fradulently transferred in favour of Defendant No.4. The Deed of Apartment and the Conveyance Deed are thus not binding upon the Plaintiff.

3.4 As the fraud was unearthed, the CIDCO (D1) revoked the NOC and permission to sell. Vide letter dated 14^th February 2017, the CIDCO (D1) noted that an impersonator has forged all the ID proof documents, and deceived all the Authorities. CIDCO (D1) thus cancelled the instruments which were registered with the Registrar. However, the Plaintiff was advised that the since the documents have been registered, the same could be cancelled only through the orders of the competent Civil Court.

3.5 The Plaintiff has thus instituted a suit seeking a declaration that Deed of Apartment dated 10^th October 2016 and 30^th November 2016 in respect of the suit premises are false, fabricated and bad-in-law and null and voide, and those Deeds of Apartment are not binding upon the Plaintiff and the consequential relief of injunction.

3.6 Defendant No. 4, in whose favour the Deed of Apartment/Conveyance Deed dated 30^th November 2016 has been executed, has appeared before the Court and contested the suit by filing Written Statement.

3.7 The Plaintiff took out an Application for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, asserting inter alia that the suit has proceeded ex parte against rest of the Defendants. Only Defendant No. 4 has professed to contest the suit by filing Written Statement. In the said Writ Statement, Defendant No.