SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N.JADHAV, J.
New Deluxe Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Applicant
Versus
Pemino Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Defendant
Interim Application No. 731 of 2025 In Suit No. 21 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 4573 of 2025 In Suit No. 21 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 6242 of 2025 In Suit No. 21 of 2025
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Amit Mehta and Mr. Vedant Rane, Advocates i/by Mr. Amit Mehta
For the Respondent:Mr. Navroz Seervai a/w. Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocates a/w. Mr. Pranav Narsaria, Mr. Abha Gokhale, Advocates i/by Desai & Diwanji

Restrictive height covenants running with land enforceable by successors without specific assignment if annexed via chain of title; suppression of facts and approbation disentitle interim equitable relief.

Headnote:(A) Property Law - Restrictive Covenants - Height restriction of 30 feet imposed by indentures carried forward in chain of title to plaintiff society - Covenant runs with land, enforceable by defendant society as successor-in-title without specific assignment as benefit annexed to land and passes on conveyance - Plaintiff suppressed covenant in initial plaint, accepted existence post reply, approbated title while challenging condition - No prima facie case, balance of convenience against interim relief permitting redevelopment beyond restriction; change in neighbourhood does not render obsolete without trial - Party must approach with clean hands. (Paras 17-37)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 and Order VIII Rule 1 - Leave for amendment and condonation of 125 days delay in written statement allowed by consent.

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Cause of action accrues on unequivocal threat/objection to right; prima facie arises on 2024 notice, suit not barred.

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff society, owner of suit property with 60-year-old dilapidated building occupied by senior citizens, resolved for redevelopment, issued public notices and invited developer tenders utilizing full potential beyond 30 feet height. Defendant society objected via legal notice and public notice citing height restrictive covenant from prior indentures, stalling developers. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration covenant void and interim injunction restraining interference with redevelopment beyond 30 feet.

Findings of Court:
Interim application for injunction dismissed; amendment and delay condonation applications allowed. All observations prima facie, rights kept open for trial.

Issues: Whether restrictive covenant subsists and binds suit property; defendant society's locus to enforce; limitation bar; suppression of facts; applicability of obsolescence; entitlement to interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Covenant reflected in plaintiff’s title documents, intended to bind successors, annexed to land per original intent and references in conveyances; no need for verbatim reproduction or privity between parties; uncertainty on beneficiary requires trial; suppression and shift in stand (denial to acceptance) invokes approbate-reprobate and clean hands doctrines, disentitling equity; interim relief tantamount to final, alters status irreversibly. Result : Interim application no.731 of 2025 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural orders allow plaint amendment and condone delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. plaintiff seeks redevelopment injunction against height restriction claim. (Para 9 , 10)
3. defendant's delayed objection shows mala fides and afterthought. (Para 11)
4. 1943-1944 indentures impose enforceable 30-feet height covenant. (Para 12)
5. defendant lacks locus; covenant vague, obsolete, personal. (Para 14)
6. plaintiff suppressed facts, estopped by approbation, time-barred. (Para 15)
7. covenant runs with land, binds successors without specific assignment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
8. no prima facie case for interim relief due to suppression. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. interim injunction application dismissed; contentions kept open. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT:

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant / Plaintiff and Mr. Seervai, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant.

2. Plaintiff – Society filed the present Suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendant – Society and declaration of the restrictive covenant in Indentures dated 15.10.1943 and 25.07.1944 as void, invalid and unenforceable.

3. Interim Application No.731 of 2025 is filed for interim reliefs whereas Interim Application No.4573 of 2025 is filed for grant of leave under Order II, Rule 2 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 and to amend the Suit Plaint by Plaintiff – Society.

4. Interim Application No.6242 of 2025 is filed by Defendant – Society for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908.

5. By consent of the parties, all three (3) Interim Applications are taken up for hearing. Parties are referred to as ‘Plaintiff’ and ‘Defendant’ for convenience.

6. For the reasons stated, Interim Application No.4573 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause “a”. Amendment is permitted to be carved out within one week from today. Reverification stands dispensed with. Additional Written Statement only to the extent of the amendment as permitted is allowed to be filed on service of the amended Plaint in accordance with law.

7. For the reasons stated, Interim Application No.6242 of 2025 is allowed. Delay of 125 days stands condoned. Written Statement is directed to be taken on record by the Department.

8. Interim Application No.731 of 2025 for interim reliefs is taken up for hearing.

9. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication for grant of interim reliefs in the present case are as follows:-

9.1. Plaintiff – Society is a Co-operative Housing Society duly registered under Registration No. BOM/HSG/-220 of 1962 under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is Plaintiff’s case that prior to 1950, Govindram Brothers Private Limited was the owner of land admeasuring 3,016 square yards situated at Altamount Road, Mumbai and out of the 3,016 square yards of land, Govindram Brothers Private Limited sold and conveyed a portion thereof admeasuring 1,900 square yards to Seksaria Industries Private Limited.

9.2. That by registered Agreement / Indenture dated 05.04.1963, Seksaria Industries Private Limited sold, conveyed and transferred land admeasuring 1,588.642 square meters i.e. equivalent to 1,900 square yards bearing Cadastral Survey No.5/664 of Malabar and Cumballa Hill Division to Plaintiff – Society (for short “the suit property”) upon which a building comprising ground plus three (3) storey was constructed by Plaintiff – Society and since then it is in lawful possession and occupation thereof.

9.3. It is Plaintiff’s case that its building constructed on the suit property is more than 60 years old and has deteriorated over a period of time. In view thereof, Plaintiff – Society resolved to undertake redevelopment of the suit property. As part of redevelopment process, Plaintiff – Society conducted a title search by its Advocate to ascertain and confirm its title to the suit property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top