Dismissed

Lynette Lucas Miranda and Ors. v. Maulabux a Qureshi and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2012CAF/698/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Civil Application No.698 of 2012 dismissed an application by original plaintiffs seeking to restrain respondents from creating rights or constructing on suit land. The court held applicants failed to produce documentary evidence proving ownership, as the trial court correctly observed the land was not in their name in the Record of Rights.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application was dismissed; no third party right restraining order was granted; no order as to costs.

Lynette Lucas Miranda and Ors. Vs Maulabux a Qureshi and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

26 caf698-12.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2012 IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.317 OF 2012

¶7

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr.A.A.Mirza for the applicants

¶9

Mr.Manoj Kumar Upadhyay for respondent no.1

¶10

Mrs.Vidya Vyavhare for the respondent no.3

¶11

CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 08/05/2012

¶12

PC :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This application is preferred by original plaintiffs for restraining respondents original defendants from creating right, title and interest in respect of the suit property bearing survey no.26/4 and CTS 33/7 and 33/8 situated at Village Bandivali, Oshiwara,

¶15

1/4

¶16

26 caf698-12.sxw

¶17

Taluka – Andheri, Mumbai.

¶18

It is the case of the applicants that they are owners of suit property and respondent nos.1 and 2 have no right to carry out any construction activity on the suit property.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicants states in 7/12 extract their grand father's name is shown as owner. He further states that proceedings' are pending before the Revenue Officer for transferring the said property in their name. He further states that during the pendency of the suit, Bombay City Civil Court has passed order restraining respondents original defendants from carrying out any construction activity. Therefore, respondents original defendants be restrained from creating any third party right, title and interest and / or carrying out any construction activity on the suit property.

2/4

26 caf698-12.sxw

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 original defendants vehemently opposed the present Civil Application He submits that the trial court categorically held that the applicants original plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership in respect of the suit property i.e. CTS 33/7 and 33/8. Therefore, they are not entitled to any interim protection from this court.

¶24

I have heard both the sides at length. Admittedly, the applicants filed suit in the City Civil Court for declaration that respondent nos.1 and 2 have no right, title and interest, in respect of the suit property i.e. CTS No.33/7 and 33/8. After perusal of the impugned order passed by trial court, it is crystal clear that applicants failed to produce documentary evidence to show that they are owners in respect of the suit land. It is to be noted that the trial court in para

3/4

26 caf698-12.sxw

11, 12 and 13 considered the documentary evidence on record and recorded that the suit property i.e. CTS 33/7 and 33/8 has not been recorded in the name of plaintiffs in the record of right.

¶29

Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that applicants have not made out prima facie case for granting any relief in their favour.

¶30

Therefore, Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶31

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶32

Mohite

¶33

4/4

Lynette Lucas Miranda and Ors. v. Maulabux a Qureshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lynette Lucas Miranda and Ors. v. Maulabux a Qureshi and Ors.

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jotiram Shirmant Kalange

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jotiram Shirmant Kalange

United India Insurance Company Ltd, Vs 1. Yogita Anant More, Aand Ors.

Ganesh Tikone, Member of Prerana Mandal, Zunka Bhakar Center for and on Behalf of Prerna Mandal. Vs 1. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, and Ors.

Kurla Nehru Nagar Angoli Mala Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Ramkrishna Baldev Giri and Ors.

Vanitaben Pravin Patel Vs Raniben Parbat Bariya