2025 INSC 524 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5377 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2021)

ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUF … APPELLANTS versus AVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL DETAILS 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25^th February 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. To appreciate Signature Not Verified the controversy, a brief reference to the facts of the case Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.04.21 Reason:

would be necessary.

3. One Champaben Hiralal Shah owned a plot of land being Final Plot No.61 in Town Planning Scheme III, Vile Parle (West), admeasuring 2814.38 sq.mtrs. (for short ‘the larger plot’). On 1^st April 1972, Champaben Hiralal Shah and the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of her three sons, Lalbhai, Ranjit and Arun, constituted a partnership firm M/s. CH Shah & Sons (for short, ‘the firm’) by executing a deed of partnership. The larger plot was Champaben Hiralal Shah's contribution to the firm's capital. After the death of Champaben, the firm was reconstituted, amongst the rest of the partners, as per the deed of reconstitution dated 30^th June 1983.

4. A deed of dissolution of partnership was executed on 13^th February 1987 (‘the deed of dissolution’) by which the firm was dissolved. The larger plot was partitioned between one Lalbhai H. Shah (predecessor of the 2^nd to 5^th respondents) and one Arun H. Shah (the Karta of the appellant). Under the deed of dissolution dated 13^th February 1987, the portion of the larger plot shown in a verged blue colour line on a plan attached (for short, ‘Lalbhai Plot’) was allotted to Lalbhai, being the Manager and Karta of Lalbhai Hiralal Shah HUF. The remaining portion of the larger plot below building No.3 and the land surrounding it, shown in a verged yellow line (for short ‘the Arun Plot’), was allotted to Arun as the Karta and manager of Arun Hiralal Shah HUF (the appellant). It was provided that construction on the Lalbhai Plot will be restricted to the development potential thereof, and the construction on the Arun Plot will be restricted to the development potential thereof in accordance with the prevailing Development Control Regulations. Lalbhai took over the firm as the sole proprietor. It was provided that if Lalbhai transfers his interest in favour of an organisation of flat purchasers, then Lalbhai/such organisation would execute a perpetual lease in favour of the appellant or its nominees in respect of the Arun plot.

5. 10th Respondent firm was constituted with Lalbhai as one of its partners by a deed of partnership dated 30^th March 1987. Lalbhai brought in the Lalbhai Plot as his capital contribution to the firm. The 10th respondent constructed a building consisting of two wings, each with ground plus two upper floors on the Lalbhai Plot. The 10th respondent entered into flat purchase agreements (for short, ‘the FPAs’) from the year 1991 onwards with the flat purchasers in respect of flats in the building. It was claimed that the FPAs were executed in terms of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1963 (for short, ‘the MOFA’). On 6^th November 1993, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the MCGM’) issued an occupation certificate in respect of the building. It is pointed out by the appellant that the first respondent, a co-operative society of the flat purchasers in the building constructed on Lalbhai Plot, was formed and registered on 15^th July 2005.

6. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai, seeking conveyance of only the Lalbhai Plot. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the 10^th respondent to convey the Lalbhai plot to the respondent by order