Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010023382020 Received on : 25-02-2020
Registered on : 02-03-2020
Decided on : 04-05-2026
Duration : 6Y, 2M, 9 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR. MUMBAI
Exh.19
SUIT NO. 911 OF 2020
Mr. Mahendra Dhanpal Yadav
Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business,
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at : In a room
admeasuring 10 x 20 sq. ft., situate at
Mithailal Yadav Chawl, Near Oxford Chamber,
Tunga Gaon, Saki Vihar, Chandivali,
Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Geeta Ramesh Benbanshi
Age : Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at : Tunga Village, Saki Vihar Road,
Chandivali, Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. .. Defendant
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Asit Singh, learned advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. B. Dsliva, learned advocate for the defendant.
CORAM: V. M. SUNDALE, ADHOC JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.02
DATED: 04th MAY, 2026
JUDGMENT
01. The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant, her agents and servants from dispossessing
-- 1 of 12 --
(2)
the plaintiff from the suit premises and from interfering with his
peaceful possession thereof without following due process of law, along
with interim and ad-interim reliefs and costs.
02. The plaintiff contends that he is in exclusive use,
occupation and possession of a room premises admeasuring 10 x 20 sq.
ft. situated at Mithailal Yadav Chawl, Saki Vihar, Chandivali, Mumbai
(hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”). He asserts that he
purchased the said premises from one Mrs. Priti Vipin Benbanshi by an
agreement for sale dated 13.12.2019 for a total consideration of
7,50,000/-, which was paid partly by bank transaction and partly in	₹
cash. It is his case that the said vendor also executed an affidavit and
general power of attorney in his favour in respect of the suit premises.
The plaintiff further traces the title of his vendor, stating that she had
earlier purchased the suit premises from one Mr. Maniram Benbanshi
under an agreement dated 04.06.2018. The plaintiff has relied upon
documentary evidence such as the agreement for sale, bank statement,
electricity bills and photo pass to substantiate his possession and
interest in the suit premises. He claims that subsequent to the purchase,
the electricity connection was transferred in his name and he has been
in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the premises
since then.
03. The plaintiff further states that in February 2020, when he
undertook minor repairs to the suit premises, the defendant, who
resides in the same locality, started interfering with his possession and
threatened him with dispossession. According to the plaintiff, on
12.02.2020 and again on 15.02.2020, the defendant along with her
-- 2 of 12 --
Judgment (3) Suit No. 911/2020
family members attempted to forcibly dispossess him and used
threatening language. The plaintiff lodged complaints with the Powai
Police Station and higher police authorities; however, he was informed
that the dispute was of a civil nature. He has also relied upon
correspondence with the local municipal councillor to show that his
repairs were lawful. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a person
of influence and that he has a genuine apprehension of being
dispossessed forcibly. In these circumstances, having no efficacious
remedy, the plaintiff has approached this Court seeking protection of his
possession by way of permanent injunction.
04. The writ of summons was duly served upon the defendant,
who thereafter entered appearance through an advocate before the
Court. However, the defendant failed to file her written statement
within the prescribed period, though sufficient and repeated
opportunities were granted for the said purpose. The record indicates
that adequate opportunity was afforded to the defendant to contest the
proceedings in accordance with law. Notwithstanding such
opportunities, the defendant neglected to file her written statement and
failed to place her defence on record. In view of such failure, this Court,
by order dated 28.06.2024, directed that the suit shall proceed without
the written statement of the defendant. Consequently, the matter
proceeded further in accordance with law in absence of any defence
raised by the defendant.
05. Mr. Asit Singh, learned advocate for the plaintiff argued
that the plaintiff has established his lawful and settled possession over
the suit premises by leading cogent oral as well as documentary
-- 3 of 12 --
(4)
evidence. He submits that the agreement for sale dated 13.12.2019
coupled with affidavit and power of attorney clearly demonstrates the
lawful induction of the plaintiff into the suit premises. It is further
contended that the chain of documents, including the prior agreement
dated 04.06.2018, substantiates the source of title of the plaintiff’s
vendor. The learned advocate submits that the electricity bills, ration
card and other documents on record unequivocally establish the
possession of the plaintiff. He further argued that the defendant has
neither filed written statement nor led any evidence and therefore the
entire case of the plaintiff remains unchallenged. It is contended that
the documentary evidence in the form of police complaints clearly
establishes the acts of interference and threat by the defendant. He
submits that it is a settled principle of law that even a person in settled
possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. He
therefore urged that the plaintiff has proved his case and is entitled to
decree of permanent injunction as prayed.
06. In light of the pleadings, the material available on record,
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff, the following
points for determination arise for my consideration. The findings
thereon are recorded hereinafter, together with the reasons set out in
support thereof.
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
01. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful
and settled possession of the suit premises? Affirmative
02. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
has interfered or is likely to interfere with his Affirmative
-- 4 of 12 --
Judgment (5) Suit No. 911/2020
possession otherwise than by due process of
law?
03. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction? Affirmative
04. What order and decree? As per final
order
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1 AND 2:
07. The plaintiff has entered the witness box and tendered his
affidavit of evidence, wherein he has reiterated the material averments
made in the plaint with consistency and clarity. He has specifically
deposed that he came into possession of the suit premises pursuant to
an agreement for sale dated 13.12.2019, executed by his vendor for
valuable consideration. In support of his testimony, the plaintiff has
produced documentary evidence including the said agreement for sale
(Exh.7), affidavit (Exh.8) and power of attorney (Exh.9), which
collectively demonstrate the circumstances under which possession was
delivered to him. The plaintiff has also relied upon a prior agreement
dated 04.06.2018 (Exh.10) to indicate the source of his vendor’s rights
and to establish continuity in the chain of possession. Although these
documents may not confer legal title in the strict sense, they are
nevertheless relevant for the limited purpose of showing the nature and
origin of possession. The evidentiary value of such documents cannot be
discarded outright, particularly in a suit where title is not directly in
issue. The plaintiff has further produced a ration card (Exh.11), which
lends support to his claim of residence and occupation at the suit
premises. These documents, read together, create a coherent and
-- 5 of 12 --
(6)
probable narrative of possession. There is nothing on record to discredit
or impeach the authenticity of these documents.
08. The oral testimony of the plaintiff assumes considerable
significance in the present case, as the same has remained wholly
unchallenged due to the failure of the defendant to file a written
statement or to cross-examine the plaintiff. It is a settled principle of
civil jurisprudence that uncontroverted and credible evidence can safely
be relied upon, unless it appears inherently improbable or unreliable. In
the absence of any rebuttal, the version put forth by the plaintiff stands
unrebutted and is therefore entitled to due weight. At the same time, it
is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize such evidence with caution
and to ensure that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving his
case independently. Upon careful evaluation, the testimony of the
plaintiff appears consistent, natural, and supported by
contemporaneous documentary evidence. There are no material
contradictions or inconsistencies that would render his version doubtful.
The conduct of the plaintiff in producing relevant documents and
approaching authorities at the relevant time further strengthens his
credibility. The absence of any competing claim or evidence from the
defendant further tilts the balance in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the
Court finds no reason to discard the plaintiff’s evidence.
09. The concept of “settled possession” has been recognized in
law as possession that is effective, undisturbed, and to the knowledge of
the true owner, if any, and which has existed for a sufficient duration.
In the present case, the plaintiff has established that he has been in
continuous and exclusive possession of the suit premises since
-- 6 of 12 --
Judgment (7) Suit No. 911/2020
December 2019. The production of documents such as electricity bills
and ration card indicates not merely casual occupation, but a degree of
permanence and stability in possession. The plaintiff has also deposed
that he undertook repairs to the premises, which is an act consistent
with ownership-like control and enjoyment. Such conduct reflects an
assertion of possessory rights and strengthens the inference of settled
possession. It is well settled that even a person who is not the lawful
owner, but is in settled possession, is entitled to protect such possession
against unlawful interference. The law does not permit any person to
take the law into their own hands and dispossess another forcibly. The
remedy of the aggrieved party lies in seeking appropriate relief through
due process of law. In the present case, the plaintiff’s possession
satisfies the essential attributes of settled possession.
10. Insofar as the allegation of interference is concerned, the
plaintiff has given a specific and consistent account of the incidents
dated 12.02.2020 and 15.02.2020, wherein the defendant is alleged to
have attempted to dispossess him forcibly. To substantiate these
allegations, the plaintiff has produced copies of complaints lodged with
the police authorities (Exh.12, Exh.14, and Exh.15), along with related
correspondence. These complaints are contemporaneous in nature and
were made promptly after the alleged incidents, which lends credibility
to the plaintiff’s version. While it is true that such complaints are, to
some extent, self-serving documents, their evidentiary value cannot be
ignored when they are consistent and remain unchallenged. The
promptness in lodging complaints indicates that the plaintiff’s
apprehension was genuine and not an afterthought. The defendant has
neither denied these allegations nor offered any explanation or rebuttal.
-- 7 of 12 --
(8)
In the absence of any contrary material, an adverse inference is liable to
be drawn against the defendant. The conduct attributed to the
defendant indicates an attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s
possession otherwise than by lawful means. Accordingly, the Court is
satisfied that the plaintiff has proved both his settled possession and the
threat of unlawful interference. Hence, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered
in the Affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 3:
11. In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos. 1 and 2, it
stands established that the plaintiff is in settled and lawful possession of
the suit premises and that the defendant has attempted to interfere with
such possession without following due process of law. The issue that
therefore arises for determination is whether, in such circumstances, the
plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed. It is
well settled that a decree of permanent injunction can be granted to
protect possession when the plaintiff proves lawful or settled possession
coupled with a threat of unlawful dispossession. In a suit of this nature,
the Court is primarily concerned with the factum of possession and the
legality of interference, and it is not necessary to adjudicate upon title
unless such determination becomes indispensable. In the present case,
the plaintiff has established his possession through cogent oral and
documentary evidence. The defendant has neither effectively
controverted the said evidence nor substantiated any lawful right to
dispossess the plaintiff. It is also a settled principle that possession, even
if not founded on perfect title, is a substantive right capable of
protection against unlawful interference. The defendant has failed to
demonstrate any superior right or authority in accordance with law to
-- 8 of 12 --
Judgment (9) Suit No. 911/2020
disturb such possession. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to protection of
his possession by way of permanent injunction.
12. At the stage of final adjudication of the suit, the Court is
required to assess whether the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing a
legal right and its infringement, rather than applying the principles
governing grant of temporary injunction such as prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which are essentially
interlocutory in nature. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his subsisting
and lawful possession and the unlawful interference by the defendant.
Refusal of relief in such circumstances would amount to permitting
dispossession otherwise than in accordance with law, which cannot be
countenanced. On the contrary, grant of permanent injunction would
merely preserve the existing lawful possession of the plaintiff, without
causing any prejudice to the defendant, who remains at liberty to seek
appropriate relief through due process of law. The relief sought is
equitable and necessary to prevent unlawful interference and
multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiff has made out a
clear case for grant of permanent injunction. Hence, Point No. 3 is
answered in the Affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 4:
13. In light of the findings recorded on the foregoing points,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has successfully
established his entitlement to the relief claimed in the suit. The
evidence adduced by the plaintiff is cogent, credible, and sufficient to
prove his settled possession as well as the unlawful interference by the
-- 9 of 12 --
(10)
defendant. The defendant, despite having been given adequate
opportunity, has failed to contest the proceedings or to place any
material on record in support of her case. Such conduct warrants
drawing an adverse inference against the defendant and lends further
support to the plaintiff’s case. The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has
approached the Court with bona fides and has not suppressed any
material facts. The relief sought is limited to protection of possession
and does not involve adjudication of title, which makes it appropriate in
the facts of the case. Granting the decree would serve the ends of justice
by preventing unlawful dispossession. The Court must ensure that no
party is permitted to take the law into their own hands. Therefore, the
suit deserves to be decreed with costs. Hence, in answer to Point No. 4,
the following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The suit is hereby decreed with costs.
2. The defendant, her agents, servants, or any person claiming
through or under her, are hereby permanently restrained from in
any manner dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises or
interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof,
otherwise than by due process of law.
3. It is clarified that this decree is confined to protection of
possession and shall not be construed as a declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiff.
-- 10 of 12 --
Judgment (11) Suit No. 911/2020
4. The defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff, as
per rules.
5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date: 04.05.2026
(V. M. Sundale)
Ad-hoc Judge,
Bombay City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
-- 11 of 12 --
(12)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT.”
04.05.2026 05.00 p.m. Shilpa P. Pawar
Stenographer - Grade IUPLOAD DATE TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H. H. Adhoc Judge
Shri. V. M. Sundale
Court Room No.2
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment
04.05.2026
Judgment signed by P. O. on 04.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on 04.05.2026
-- 12 of 12 --