Disposed

Mr. Sagir Ahmed Tufail Ahmed Khan v. Mrs. Razia Begum Wd/O Tufail Ahmed Khan

Bombay HC26 Sept 2014CAF/2328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order addresses equities arising from possession and income of suit properties while a partition appeal is pending. It directs the Court Receiver to take possession of a flat and mandates that rental income from shops be apportioned between the parties until possession is handed over.

What did the court decide?

Court Receiver directed to take possession of flat; builder to deduct Rs. 15,000 monthly from appellant's income to pay respondent until possession handed over to Receiver.

Mr. Sagir Ahmed Tufail Ahmed Khan Vs Mrs. Razia Begum Wd/O… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/4 caf2328.14.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2328 of 2014 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO . 787 OF 2014.

¶5

Sagir Ahmed Tufail Ahmed Khan … Appellant/original defendant no.1.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Razia Begum wd/o Tufail Ahmed Khan & ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rafique Ahmed Shaikh for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. Y.E. Mooman for respondent no.1. Ms. Manisha Bhagwan Gawde for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. P.J. Ramchandran for respondents 4 and 5.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶11

26th September, 2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, contesting defendant, Counsel appearing for the developers-respondents 4 and 5. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and other relevant record including death certificate of Hajra Begum, shop licences issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (pages 116 and 159 of the paper-book) in respect of shop no.66 and gala no.71. The suit relates to three properties, two shops and one

¶14

2/4 caf2328.14.sxw

¶15

room no.40. There is no dispute between the parties that the room area had been subjected to the development scheme and flat ad measuring 350 sq. feet was constructed and according to Counsel for defendant no.1, it is in the possession of the appellant/applicant herein. The learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff submitted that said flat has been leased out and appellant is enjoying all the fruits of compensation of the licenced premises. The statement made is disputed by the Counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions of the appellant who is present in Court.

¶16

The next issue is in respect of two shops bearing no.66 and 71. The learned Counsel appearing for developers/respondents 4 and 5 on instructions of the Manager who is present in Court submits that the development/construction of the said site is in progress. The construction has reached upto plinth level.

¶17

The trial Court had granted 6.25% share in the immovable subject property i.e. suit property in favour of the plaintiff herein namely Razia Begum who is aged 83 years old today. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant herein submits that trial Court did not grant any relief in favour of two daughters of Razia Begum. The learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff-Razia Begum submits that in view of evidence brought on record and the percentage of share granted in favour of the Razia Begum and as appeal is admitted by this Court,

¶18

3/4 caf2328.14.sxw

¶19

considering the age of Razia Begum, day to day expenses, medical expenses etc. the Court may work out the equities so that in her lifetime she would enjoy the fruits of the decree.

¶20

After considering the facts, the evidence brought on record and the submissions advanced, we find that some equities are to be worked out, pending hearing and disposal of this appeal. We, therefore, pass following order.

¶21

(a) We direct the Court Receiver to take possession of the flat no. 1207, Gulmohar Terrace, Kandia street, Nagpada, Mumbai of 350 sq. feet as described in Exhibit D to the plaint. The Receiver shall appoint the appellant Sagir Ahmed as his agent without payment of royalty or security.

¶22

(b) In respect of two shops bearing no. 66 and 71 we direct that after construction of these shops by the developer, the developer shall hand over possession to the Court Receiver. The Receiver thereafter shall submit the report to this Court and seek further orders. After receiving the report from the receiver appropriate further orders would be passed. The appellant herein is receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the developers-respondents 4 and 5. We direct that developers shall herein after deduct Rs. 15,000/- from the amount of Rs. 50,000/- being paid to the appellant Sagir Ahmed and shall pay the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- to respondent Razia Begum-wife of Ahmed Khan. The

¶23

caf2328.14.sxw

¶24

4/4

¶25

appellant who has received the monthly payment of Rs. 50,000 from the developer till March 2015 would start paying Rs. 15,000/- per month by cheque in favour of respondent Razia Begum from 1^st October, 2014 till 31^st March, 2015. Thereafter the builder would pay at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for six months (amounting to Rs. 90,000/-) in favour of Razia Begum and monthly payment of Rs. 35,000/- to the present appellant. In such a manner, the builder shall continue to pay to the parties till possession of the shop nos. 66 and 71 is handed over to the Court Receiver. In case of proportionate increase in the rent the developer shall proportionately calculate the amount and pay to the parties as directed above.

¶26

The Civil Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

¶28

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Mr. Sagir Ahmed Tufail Ahmed Khan v. Mrs. Razia Begum Wd/O Tufail Ahmed Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sagir Ahmed Tufail Ahmed Khan v. Mrs. Razia Begum Wd/O Tufail Ahmed Khan

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. Chandrashekhar R. Piske Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Mr. Chandrashekhar R. Piske Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Vivek S/O Sudhakarroa Kulkarni Vs the State Bank of India and Others

Shri. Satishkumar Ashok Madake Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Suman Revansiddhe Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Satishkumar Ashok Madake Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.