Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
MHCC010030752019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1197 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003075-2019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.163 OF 2019
Mr. Govind Maruti Jagdale ….Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mr. Navaji S/o Maruti Jagdale and Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearance :
Adv. Vikas Tambwekar for the plaintiff.
Adv. Santosh Yadav for the defendant No.1.
Adv. Ruhi Hajare for defendant No.2/BMC.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. PRASHANT C. KALE
(COURT ROOM NO.06)
DATE : 05th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORDER
By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiff has prayed for following
interim reliefs :
b) “ That, temporary injunction may kindly be grant against
the defendant No.1 not to alienate suit property to another
person by way of gift deed, transfer deed etc. till the
decision of main suit.
Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
c) The defendant No.1 and his relative any person who acting
upon defendant may kindly be restrain to enter in the
house of suit property till disposal of main suit.
d) That the order may kindly be grant against the defendant
No.1 pay rent to the plaintiff by vacate this suit house
property.
e) That, defendant No.2 record may kindly be called when it
necessary by granting necessary order in case
no.140/MGD/2018.
f) Cost of motion be provided for;
g) Any just and equitable order may kindly be granted.
h) Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) above.
i) Such other and further reliefs as the nature &
circumstances of case may require be granted.”
2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that, while prosecuting this Notice
of Motion, he relies upon contentions raised by him in the plaint. The
short case of the plaintiff is that, he and defendant No.1 are brothers
and the suit house was in the name of their father. Defendant No.1 by
fabricating false documents and in collusion with defendant No.2
Corporation got allotted the suit house in his name. Father of the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 Maruti Dadu Jagdale was having house
property but now having it is in the name of defendant No.1 at – 302,
3rd Floor, Building No.06, Kadsidheshwar Co-Op Housing Society, Shri
Ram Tekdi Path, Sewri, Mumbai- 15, Lekhan No.FS1402691340014, /
Malmatta No.FS 1132(F), situated at G.D. Ambekar Marg,
Kadsidheshwar Co-Op Housing Society, Shri Ram Tekdi Path, Sewri,
Mumbai- 15 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit House”). The plaintiff’s
father Maruti Dadu Jagdale was the owner of hut FSM 52-5/21 in gut
No.- 4/209, 208 (W) situated at- G.D. Ambekar Marg, Kadsidheshwar
Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
Co.Op Housing Society, Shri Ram Tekdi Path, Sewri, Mumbai-15. Late
father of the plaintiff was possessor and owner of the hut / suit hut
described in BMC notice dated 04.01.1976. The Ration Card of the
father of the plaintiff is having his name. Defendant No.1 prepared false
and bogus documents at Exhibit-G, H, I and obtained the order of
transfer in his name in collusion with defendant No.2. Thus, it is
necessary to cancel the said transfer order. Hence, this Notice of Motion
alongwith Suit.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and submitted that at the
hut bearing No.FSM 52 – 5/21 in Gut No.4/209, 208(W) situated at
Ram Laxman Tekadi, Ram Laxman Vasahat, Sewree, Mumbai- 400 015
was transferred in his name in the year 1990 and as such, the present
suit is barred by the law of limitation. The said hut bearing No.FSM 52-
5/21 in Gut No.4/209, 208(W) situated at Ram Laxman Tekadi, Ram
Laxman Vasahat, Sewree, Mumbai- 400 015 was standing in the name
of defendant’s father Shri. Maruti Dadu Jagdale. The said Shri. Maruti
Dadu Jagdale expired on 15.05.2013. Late Maruti Dadu Jagdale left
Mumbai in the year 1976 and thereafter, defendant No.1 was residing in
the said hut alongwith the members of his family. The plaintiff never
resided in the said hut. During the lifetime of defendant’s father Shri.
Maruti Dadu Jagdale, he submitted the requisite documents to the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for transfer of the said hut in
the name of defendant. Pursuant to the said documents submitted by
defendant’s father Shri. Maruti Dadu Jagdale, the said hut was
transferred in the name of defendant. He craves leave to refer to and
rely upon the documents submitted by his father Shri. Maruti Dadu
Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
Jagdale to the concerned authorities for transfer of the said hut in the
name of defendant No.1, as and when produced. Thereafter, by reason
of redevelopment of the slum wherein the said hut was situated, the
defendant No.1 has been allotted flat, being Flat No.302, 3rd floor,
Building No.6, Kad Siddheshwar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Ram
Laxman Vasahat, Sewree, Mumbai- 400 015, the suit premises. He
craves leave to refer to and rely upon the documents relating to the
allotment of the suit premises in favour of defendant No.1 at the time of
redevelopment of the said slum, as and when produced. Defendant
No.1 has denied all the adverse allegations made by the plaintiff in his
plaint and prayed for dismissal of the Notice of Motion.
4. Heard learned advocate for the plaintiff and learned advocates for
defendants.
5. The plaintiff has filed on record i.e. the tax receipt at Exhibit-A in
the name of defendant No.1. Document at Exhibit-B is the notice issued
by the BMC on 02.07.2018 in the name of father of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit house demanding tax. Document at Exhibit-C is
photocopy of Ration Card. Document at Exhibit-D is the x.kuk i=d
issued by defendant / Corporation. Documents at Exhibits- G, H and I
are the affidavit of father of the plaintiff, Indemnity Bond and
Undertaking given to the Corporation, whereby hut bearing No.FSM 52-
5/21 in Gut No.4/209, 208(W), BMC was transferred in the name of
defendant No.1.
6. The cause of action as stated by the plaintiff for filing the present
suit arose on dated 13.11.2018. However, the cause of action is not
Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
explained in the plaint. Documents which are claimed to be false and
fabricated by the plaintiff are mostly of the year 1990. The father of the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 is reported to have expired on 15.05.2013.
Thus, documents which the plaintiff is assailing to be false and
fabricated were executed at least 20 years prior to the death of the
father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
Prima-facie, there is no
document on record to show that documents relied by defendant No.1
are false and fabricated.
Prima-facie by virtue of the affidavit of the
father of the plaintiff, he has relinquished his right, title and interest
over premises i.e. hut bearing No.FSM 52 – 5/21 in Gut No.4/209,
208(W) situated at Ram Laxman Tekadi, Ram Laxman Vasahat, Sewree,
Mumbai in the name of defendant No.1. The said affidavit is notarized
and on the basis of that the rights were transferred in the name of
defendant No.1. The plaintiff has failed to show a "serious question to
be tried," meaning his claim to the property is not frivolous. It is not the
contention of the plaintiff that the property is ancestral/joint family
property.
On the contrary, the contentions and documents of defendant
No.1 weighs heavy.
Prima facie, the suit property is self-acquired
property of the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and he has the
right to alienate it to any one. There is no
prima facie material to
demonstrate that the relinquishment was done through fraud, coercion,
or undue influence. The relinquishment was not challenged by the
plaintiff when father was alive. Defendant No.1 who received the
property already is reported to be in absolute and lawful possession.
More over the plaintiff has not filed the suit for Partition and present
suit is for declaration and injunction.
Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
7. Appreciating the relevant considerations for grant of temporary
injunction with the present set of circumstances, the plaintiff has failed
to make out
prima-facie case and demonstrate what irreparable loss
would be caused to him.
On the contrary, in view of documents, the
balance of inconvenience lies in favour of defendant No.1. Hence,
following order :
O R D E R
1. The Notice of Motion No.1197 of 2019 is dismissed.
2. Proceeding in Notice of Motion No.1197 of 2019 is closed.
3. Parties to take note.
(PRASHANT C. KALE)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Greater Bombay.
Date: 05.02.2026
Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 7 --
L.C. Suit No.163/2019 N.M. No.1197/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
21.02.2026 at 06.15 p.m. N.S. Bakre
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. PRASHANT C. KALE
(C.R.NO.06)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
05.02.2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 21.02.2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 21.02.2026
Page 7 of 6
-- 7 of 7 --