Disposed

Pushkaraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the City Survey Officer, Malad and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014WP/1417/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-paragraph order granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application in a pending suit for leave to permit demarcation of property where a Court Receiver has taken possession. The author clarified that such liberty does not constitute acceptance of the Receiver's appointment or concession of rights.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an application in the suit for leave to carry out demarcation of the property.

Pushkaraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the City… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

w408.14

¶2

Shiv

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.408 OF 2014

¶5

Pushkaraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s. The City Survey Officer, Malad & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.135 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.408 OF 2014

¶8

Mohamed Shafi Ahmed Chunawala … Applicant (Intervenor) Pushkaraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s. The City Survey Officer, Malad & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant for the Petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Geeta Shastri A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. D. H. Mehta with Ms. Mukta R. Singh for Respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9.

¶11

Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala i/b Mr. Wasim Ansari for the Applicant/Intervenor in Chamber Summons No.135 of 2014.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR &

¶13

A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2014.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The Petitioner seeks demarcation of the property of which

¶16

1/3

¶17

w408.14

¶18

he claims to be owner under a conveyance dated 15th December, 1994 from Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 have filed a suit for trespass against a third party, namely, Mohamed Shafi Ahmed Chunawala, who seeks to intervene in this petition. The Respondents rightly contend that the Collector – Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have ordered demarcation of the property pursuant to the Petitioner's application. The Respondents, however, contend that the Court Receiver having been appointed in the said suit, leave ought to be obtained from the court that the appointed the Court Receiver permitting the demarcation to be carried out.

¶19

There are rival contentions between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 on the one hand and the Petitioner and the intervenor on the other regarding the right, title and interest in respect of the said property and/or part thereof.

¶20

Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner apprehends that if the application is made in the suit it may be construed as the Petitioner having accepted that the Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of property of which the Petitioner claims to be owner of.

¶21

2/3

¶22

w408.14

¶23

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 confirmed that to carry out demarcation as per their order it would be necessary for the officer to enter upon the property in respect of which the Court Receiver has taken possession.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the Petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in the suit in which the Court Receiver was appointed for leave to permit the demarcation to be carried out. If such an application is made it would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties including the intervenor in respect of the property in all respect. It is clarified that such an application if made will not amount to the Petitioner having conceded any aspect against its interest in respect of the property of which it claims to be the owner. The Petitioner having made a similar application in the past and having withdrawn the same shall not be a ground for rejecting the application, if made.

¶25

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Chamber Summons is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶26

(A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶27

3/3

Pushkaraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the City Survey Officer, Malad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushkaraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. the City Survey Officer, Malad 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

Shri. C. a. Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader High Court, Original Side and 18 Ors.

Rahimabai Sayyed Ahmed Shaikh and 15 Ors. Vs the Estate Officer, Executive Engineercpwd and 2 Ors.

M/S.Global Marketing and Anr. Vs the Estate Officer, Cpwd and Anr.

Vinod M. Patel Vs Hemant Nanji Charania

Mrs. Noorjahan Moosa Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (Applicant) Vs the National Commodity and Anr.