Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 SU No.5232020
MHCC010020282020
Presented on : 15.02.2020
Registered on : 18.02.2020
Decided on : 04.02.2023
Duration : Y2, M11,D18
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SUIT NO.523 OF 2020
Mr.Balu Maruti Bhosale ]
Age about 65 years, Occ.Retired, ]
Residing at Room No.118, BWing ]
1st Floor, Building No.1, Prabhadevi SRA ]
CHS Ltd., Kashinath Dhuru Wadi, ]
Rajabhau Desai Road, Prabhadevi, ]
Mumbai 400 25. ]......Plaintiff
V/s
1. Bhiva Maruti Bhosale ]
Age about 55 years, Occ.Retired, ]
2. Suvarna Bhiva Bhosale ]
Age about 50 years, Occ.Service, ]
3. Prajakta Bhiva Bhosale ]
Age 24 years, Occ.Service, ]
4. Pournima Bhiva Bhosale ]
Age 21 years, Occ.Student ]
Residing at c/o. Room No.102, ]
Kamgar Nagar No.2, New ]
Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai 400 025. ]......Defendants
APPEARANCE:
Adv. Mr.S.S.Redekar for the plaintiff.
Defendants Exparte
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADHOC JUDGE
(C.R.No.62)
DATED : 04th February, 2023.
-- 1 of 7 --
2 SU No.523/2020
JUDGMENT
This is suit for simplicitor injunction.
In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under :
2. The plaintiff is in possession of ‘Room No.118, 1st Floor, B Wing,
Prabhadevi SRA CHS Ltd., Kashinath Dhuruwadi, Rajabhau Desai Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai400 025’. This premises is the suit premises. It was
allotted to the plaintiff in Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme
implemented under Development Control Rules 33(10). Originally the
plaintiff was occupying old hut which was self acquired premises of the
plaintiff. In SRA scheme, the plaintiff became eligible as per the list
prepared by authority under Slum Rehabilitation. The plaintiff has
various documents in support of the same.
3. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is real
brother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1.
Defendant No.3 and 4 are daughters of defendant No.1 and 2. As the
defendant No.1 has no house for accommodation in Mumbai, the
plaintiff allowed him and his family to reside with the plaintiff in the
suit premises. After the marriage of plaintiff's sons, due to shortage of
space for accommodation, the plaintiff requested the defendants to
make their own arrangements elsewhere. Accordingly, defendants left
the suit premises in the month of June 2019 and since then the plaintiff
is in exclusive possession of the suit premises with his family members.
4. It is further case of the plaintiff that later on the defendants
started to take disadvantage of their documents having address of suit
premises. They started disturbing the plaintiff's possession. They
-- 2 of 7 --
3 SU No.523/2020
threatened the plaintiff. They tried to forcibly enter in the suit premises.
The defendants have no concern with the suit premises. Hence, to
restrain their obstruction, the plaintiff has filed this suit and therein has
prayed for decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants.
5. As the defendants failed to file the written statement, my
predecessor by order dated 30.11.2021 ordered to proceed this suit
without written statement of the defendants.
6. Heard the Ld. advocate for the plaintiff, no argument of the
defendants. Points for consideration alongwith my findings thereon
with reasons are as follows :
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
exclusive lawful possession of the suit
premises ?
Yes
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants are unlawfully obstructing his
possession ?
Yes
3. What order and decree ? Suit is decreed.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOs.1 and 2:
7. The plaintiff has examined himself as Balu (PW1) at Exh.6. He
relied on following documentary evidence.
1. Share Certificate at Exh.8.
2. Maintenance receipts at Exh.9 (colly.)
3. Electricity bills at Exh.10 (colly.).
-- 3 of 7 --
4 SU No.523/2020
4. Aadhar Card of Nitin Balu Bhosale at Exh.11.
5. Bills issued by Mahanagar Gas Ltd. at Exh.12 (colly.).
6.Communication from LIC at Exh.13 (colly.).
7.Birth certificate of plaintiff’s granddaughter Anvi at Exh.14.
8. Election identity card at Exh.15.
9. Certified copy of roznama in SU St.No.2319/20 at Exh.16.
8. Balu (PW1) deposes that the suit premises is his self acquired
property. It is allotted to him in lieu of his old hut premises. The share
certificate Exh.8 is in respect of the suit premises. It bears name of the
plaintiff alone. The receipts of payment of maintenance of the suit
premises Exh.9 (colly.) show that the plaintiff time to time has paid the
maintenance charges in respect of suit premises to Prabhadevi SRA
Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Ltd. Electricity bills Exh.10 (colly.) are in
respect of the suit premises. It is in the name of plaintiff. Aadhar card
Exh.11 is the Aadhar Card of plaintiff's son Mr.Nitin. It bears address of
the suit premises. Bills of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Exh.12 (colly.) bears
name of the plaintiff and address of the suit premises. Correspondence
of LIC letteres Exh.13 (colly.) bears address of the suit premises. It is
related with the plaintiff's sons. Birth certificate Exh.14 is the birth
certificate of plaintiff's granddaughter Anvi. It bears residential address
of the suit premises. Election ID card of the plaintiff bears address of the
suit premises. All these documentary evidence show that the suit
premises is in possession of the plaintiff. The share certificate Exh.8
issued by Prabhadevi SRA Cooperative Housing Society supports the
plaintiff's case that the suit premises has been allotted to the plaintiff in
SRA scheme. It infers that the plaintiff is occupying the suit premises as
owner thereof. Therefore, the plaintiff is occupying the suit premises as
-- 4 of 7 --
5 SU No.523/2020
a lawful owner thereof. Thereby the plaintiff's possession in the suit
premises is lawful possession.
9. The defendants have not filed the written statement challenging
the plaintiff's contention. The plaintiff's evidence goes unchallenged.
Therefore, it is required to be believed and accepted. The defendants
have not produced any document to show that they are having any
right, title or interest in the suit premises. In absence thereof, inference
can be drawn that the defendants have no right in respect of the suit
premises. Evidence of Balu (PW1) that the defendants are wrongfully
claiming their right in the suit premises and obstructing the plaintiff is
required to be accepted. The certify copy in Suit Stamp No.2319/20
Exh.16 shows that the defendant No.1 and 2 alongwith other persons
had filed one suit against the plaintiff and his family members. The
record shows that on 30.11.2021 in said suit plaint was rejected and
proceedings were closed. Balu (PW1) deposes that said suit was filed in
respect of the suit premises. Therein the address of the plaintiff's are
shown as the address of suit premises. Thereby the defendant Nos.1 and
2 admit that plaintiff and his family members are occupying the suit
premises.
10. As aforesaid the plaintiff proves that the suit premises has been
allotted to him in SRA scheme. The share certificate of the suit premises
stands in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is paying maintenance
charges of the suit premises. Therefore, the plaintiff is the lawful owner
of the suit premises. The defendants without any right, title and interest
in the suit premises, are obstructing the plaintiff's lawful possession,
hence, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
-- 5 of 7 --
6 SU No.523/2020
AS TO POINT No.3 :
11. In view of my aforesaid findings suit is required to be decreed. In
respect of the costs I am of the view that due to the act of the
defendants the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit, hence, the
defendants shall bear the costs of this suit. In the result, in answer to
issue No.3, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendants by themselves or any other person
claiming through them are restrained by order of
perpetual injunction from disturbing the plaintiff's use,
occupation and possession of the suit premises and
from entering into the suit premises.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mumbai.
Date : 04.02.2023
Dictated directly computer on : 04.02.2023
Typed on : 04.02.2023
Signed by HHJ on : 04.02.2023
-- 6 of 7 --
7 SU No.523/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.02.2023 at p.m. Mr. S.S. Bathe
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. R.A. SASNE (C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 04.02.2023
Order signed by P.O. on 04.02.2023
Order uploaded on 08.02.2023
-- 7 of 7 --