Dismissed

M/S. Vrunda'S Construction Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC17 Aug 2011CAA/180/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal from an order in a suit for protection against dispossession, the High Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate actual possession despite claiming it under a Development Agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the civil application.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the civil application was disposed of accordingly.

M/S. Vrunda'S Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) (908) AO 118/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 118 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2011

¶5

M/s. Vrunda’s Construction Co... Appellant
Vs.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Harinder Toor a/w. Mr. S. B. Pawar a/w. Ms. Swati
Sawant i/b S. K. Legal Associates for the Appellant.
Ms. K. K. Soran for the Respondent-MMC.

¶8

CORAM: MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Date: 17th August, 2011.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1.The Appellant filed the Suit against the
Respondent for protection against dispossession. The
Appellant must primarily show his actual possession.
The Appellant failed to show that. The Appellant
claims to be in possession under a registered
Development Agreement. The possession actually taken
under any possession letter is not shown by any
documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence to
show that he was put in possession or continued in
possession or continued his development is also not
shown.

¶11

2.The Defendant has shown that the Defendants
have been put in possession under a specific letter of
possession from the maintenance survey of ULC under
Urban Land Ceiling Act since 09.06.1981. The
Defendants have also shown their property register

¶12

(2) (908) AO 118/11

¶13

card.

¶14

3.Mr. Toor argues even if the Defendant is put
possession, it must sue for recovery of possession by
following due legal process which can only be
effectuated by a Suit filed under Section 5 of the
Specific Relief Act. That proposition of law which
the Plaintiff relies upon cannot be applied unless the
Plaintiff shows his own actual possession.

¶15

4.Because the Plaintiff cannot show the actual
possession, he cannot apply for appointment of the
Court Commissioner to show his possession. Possession
of immovable property can be shown by the Plaintiff
only by the actual possession evidenced by the plans
or photographs or by circumstantial evidence. No
officer of the Court can show possession of any party
as on the date of the Suit. Any possession of the
party after the date of the Suit seen by the officer
of the Court is not material. The very prayer of the
Plaintiff shows that it is taken out as the Plaintiff
cannot justify his actual possession.

¶16

5.The impugned order is correct. The Appeal
is dismissed.

¶17

6.The Civil Application is disposed of
accordingly.

¶18

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

M/S. Vrunda'S Construction Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vrunda'S Construction Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Manoj Lakulal Chaurasia Vs Mr. Ramesh Lakulal Chaurasia

Ranibai Yashwant Bhadake and Ors. Vs Sudam Yashwant Bhadake and Ors.

Mr. Mevalal Amarnath Yadav and Ors. Vs Smt. Sonali Mule and Ors.

M/S. Vrunda'S Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Deepak Kirtilal Mepani Vs Milind Gopalrao Gujarati

Mr. Rajesh Manohar Patil and Others Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai