Dismissed

Mrs Nutan Baban Dumbare v. Sambhaji Baban Hule and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2024WP/1464/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2019. Upholding the Tribunal, the Court held that since the respondent is the exclusive owner and the petitioner failed to prove payment of consideration or maintain her, the Tribunal could legally direct the surrender of possession.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

Mrs Nutan Baban Dumbare Vs Sambhaji Baban Hule and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

27-wp1464-2024.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1464 OF 2024

¶5

VAIBHAVRAMESHJADHAV Digitallysigned byVAIBHAVRAMESHJADHAVDate:2024.02.0518:33:16+0530

¶6

Nutan Baban Dumbre … Petitioner V/s. Sambhaji Baban Hule & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.S. Pradhan with Mr. Ketan Kothari for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S.R. Page with Ms. Sesha Jaifalkar for respondent No.1.

¶9

Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for respondent No.2/State.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petitioner is challenging order dated 1^st January 2024 passed by respondent No.1 challenging order passed by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to hand over possession of property in dispute to respondent No.1.

¶13

It appears that the parties entered into a consent deed which refers to sale in favour of petitioner for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The deed also refers that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid to father (applicant) whenever possible either by cash or through bank account.

¶14

The respondent No.1 filed an application before the Tribunal established under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2019 contending that the petitioner be directed to pay maintenance and

¶15

¶16

27-wp1464-2024.doc

¶17

for possession of property in dispute as the petitioner failed to maintain respondent No.1.

¶18

The Tribunal recorded a finding that respondent No.1 is Senior Citizen having four children. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was exclusive owner of the property in dispute. As per the deed of settlement, the petitioner was to pay Rs.6,00,000/-. Though it is the case of the petitioner that she has paid Rs.7,00,000/-, no proof was produced before the Tribunal.

¶19

The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding that since respondent No.1 is exclusive owner of the suit property, he is entitled to possession of the suit property. It needs to be noted that there is no registered document on record to transfer respondent No.1’s right in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of transfer of such title, the petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the property. The Tribunal has power to direct family member to hand over possession of property in favour of senior citizen.

¶20

In view of absence of dispute regarding respondent No.1’s title over the property in dispute, and in view of absence of evidence of payment either maintenance or Rs.6,00,000/- as agreed, the Tribunal was within its power to direct petitioner to handover possession of the property in dispute. There is no error apparent on the face of record nor patent illegality calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Mrs Nutan Baban Dumbare v. Sambhaji Baban Hule and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Nutan Baban Dumbare v. Sambhaji Baban Hule and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazarali Nazar Husain Sayyed @ Sahil @Datta vs State of Maharashtra

Raja Vasu Yallappa vs State of Maharashtra

Irfan Yasin Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

K Rajan Vs Tahasildar -3 Western Suburb Slum Rehabilatation Authority and Ors.

Aftab Ahmed Khan and Ors. Vs Naaz Asif Shaikh and Ors.

Vikram Chandrakant Godase vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.