Disposed

Jaspal Kaur Jaswant Singh Mokha and Others v. Gurucharan Singh Mokha and Another

Bombay HC19 Sept 2024AO/466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an interim order partly granting relief on a motion to restrain transfer of a suit flat's share certificate. The High Court found the blanket injunction in clause (3) granted without considering the specific prayer or respondent's documents, set it aside, and restored prayer clause (b) for fresh consideration by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Clause (3) of impugned order set aside; motion restored to file for fresh decision of prayer clause (b) with Letter of Administration to be considered; rival contentions kept open.

Jaspal Kaur Jaswant Singh Mokha and Others vs… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 17-AO-466-2024 C.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 466 OF 2024 Jaspal Kaur Jaswant Singh Mokha And Others ...Appellants Versus Gurucharan Singh Mokha And Another ...Respondents

¶4

¶5

Mr. Bhavesh Parmar with Rajesh Sahani i/b Devmani Shukla for the Appellants.

¶6

Mr. Ankur Shah i/b Akshay Udeshi for Respondent No.1.

SNEHA NITIN

CHAVAN

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.12.10 14:35:44 +0530

¶11

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 9^th DECEMBER 2024

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 Society had not appeared before the Trial Court, despite service. Therefore, considering the order that this Court proposes to pass, notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶14

The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay at Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 2576 of 2023 in Suit No. 588 of 2023. By the said impugned order, the motion filed by the Appellants was partly allowed. Motion was filed for restraining Respondent No.1 from creating 3^rd party interest in respect of suit flat and for restraining Respondent No.2 Society from transferring share certificate No.20 issued in the name of deceased Jaswantsingh Premsingh Mokha in respect of flat no. B-8, save and except to the Appellants being legal heirs of deceased Jaswantsingh.

¶15

Perusal of operative part of the impugned order shows that

¶16

Sneha Chavan

¶17

1/3

¶18

2 17-AO-466-2024 C.doc

¶19

under clause (2) thereof, Respondent No.1 is restrained from creating 3^rd party interest. Neither the Appellant nor Respondent No.1 have challenged this clause No.(2).

¶20

This appeal is filed challenging clause (3) of the impugned order, under which Respondent no.2 Society is restrained from transferring the concerned share certificate in favour of ‘anybody’ till the decision in the suit.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Appellants invited this Court’s attention to prayer clause (b) of the motion contending that the prayer was specific and injunction was sought restraining Society from transferring the share certificate to any third party, except the Appellants. He submits that the Appellants are legal heirs of deceased Jaswantsingh and contends that clause (3) of the impugned order is an indirect relief granted in favour of Respondent No.1 in the suit filed by the Appellants. He also submits that after the impugned order was passed, the Appellants have secured Letter of Administration because deceased Jaswansingh died intestate and the said order is dated 10.04.2024. It is therefore, obvious that this document was not available before the Trial Court for consideration.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that Respondent No.1 has purchased the suit flat from Mr. Narang for consideration of Rs.12,600/- and he had produced copy of possession receipt along with possession letter issued in his favour along with written statement. He submitted that since its purchase, Respondent No.1 and his family members are in physical possession of the suit flat for last 40 years which is uninterrupted. He further pointed out case of adverse possession is also sought to be made out.

¶23

Perusal of the impugned order shows that so far as direction in

¶24

Sneha Chavan

¶25

2/3

¶26

3 17-AO-466-2024 C.doc

¶27

clause (3) is concerned, apparently the prayer as made by the Appellants in prayer clause (b) is not considered and blanket injunction is granted. The impugned order also does not indicate the consideration of documents relied upon by Respondent No.1 in respect of his case. Additionally, Appellants now claims to have Letter of Administration after the impugned order is passed.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, an opportunity deserved to be granted to both sides so far as prayer of restraining transfer of share certificate is concerned.

¶29

Hence, Appeal from Order is disposed of by passing following

¶30

order.

¶31

(i) Clause (3) of the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, is set aside and the motion (NM No. 2576 of 2023) is restored to file to the extent of prayer clause (b).

¶32

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to consider prayer clause (b) of the motion, in the light of documents which are already produced on record by both the sides as also the document of letter of Administration that the Appellants will produce.

¶33

(iii) The said prayer clause (b) will be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order. Rival contentions of both the sides in that regard are kept open.

¶34

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶35

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶36

Sneha Chavan

¶37

3/3

Jaspal Kaur Jaswant Singh Mokha and Others v. Gurucharan Singh Mokha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Kaur Jaswant Singh Mokha and Others v. Gurucharan Singh Mokha and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub vs Vivek Niwas Patil and Anr.

Amar Vishwas Sable Wrongly Named as Amar Ishwar Sable vs Sangita Maruti Shingate

Ashok Tamma Jadhav vs Trade Centre Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Pune. Thr. Managing Director Ishwar C. Parmar

Sou. Chaya Pandurang Chavan and Anr. Vs Pandurang Doulu Chavan and Ors.

Ashwin Gada vs M/S. Milan Associates and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Mumbai Legal Hub vs Vivek Niwas Patil and Anr.