Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHCC010056102019 Presented on : 03-05-2019.
Registered on : 11-06-2019.
Decided on : 12-03-2025.
Duration : 05 Ys, 10 Ms. 09 Ds.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
SUIT No.1381 OF 2019
Exh.29
Rajendra Mingel Koli
Age:55 Years, Occ:Service,
Indian Inhabitant, R/at.Room
No.28, B.I.T. Chawl No.1, 1st Floor,
475-Madhavrao Rokade Street,
Mandvi Koliwada, Mumbai:400 009. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Mumbai Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai, a statutory
Body established under the
provisions of Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888, having
their Head Office at Mahapalika
Building, Mahapalika Marg, Fort,
Mumbai: 400 001 through, Estate
Department, 4th Floor, Annex Building,
Mahanagar Palika Marg, C.S.T.,
Mumbai:400 001. ... Defendant
Appearance:
Learned Counsel Mohit Jadhav for the plaintiff.
Learned Counsel Chaitanya Dalvi for the defendant/MCGM.
=====================================
Claim :-Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction.
===================================
-- 1 of 7 --
2
CORAM : HIS HONOUR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
R. S. ARADHYE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C.R. No.05).
DATE : 12/03/2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 12th March 2025 )
The plaintiff by this suit has asked for the relief of
declaration that letter Dtd.07/02/2017 and legal opinion
Dtd.10/01/2017 which are issued by defendant/MCGM are illegal, bad
in law and null and void and thereby order of mandatory injunction be
issued for transferring the suit premises i.e. Room No.28, 1st Floor,
B.I.T. Chawl No.1, 475, Madhavrao Rokade Street, Mandvi Koliwada,
Mumbai;400 009 in view of their earlier legal opinions Dtd.
13/04/2015, 20/04/2016 and 03/08/2016.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case can be stated as under:-
One Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa during her lifetime was in
exclusive use, occupation and possession of the suit premises and she
died on 24/10/1994 at Mumbai leaving behind her three sons and
four daughters as legal heirs namely Sanjeev, Mingel and
Harishchandra as well as Prabhavati, Jayvanti, Motabai and Archana
respectively. The said Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa is the plaintiff’s grand
mother and amongst her sons and daughters, Prabhavati and Archana
those are not residing in the suit premises. Son Mingel is the father of
the plaintiff and after marriage, he alongwith mother of the plaintiff
resided at Dahisar for the period of seven years. But since
childhood, plaintiff is residing in the suit premises with his grand
-- 2 of 7 --
3
Suit No. 1381/2019
Rajendra Mingel Koli V/s MCGM
mother Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa. At present, as per the plaintiff, he is
residing in the suit premises with his family members and one of the
daughter of the deceased Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa namely Motabai
who is spinster.
3. It is further the case of plaintiff that by residing in the suit
premises, he completed his education and now in the employment of
defendant/MCGM since 1992. After death of said Janabai Shinwar
Nakhwa, he is entitled for getting the suit premises, so firstly on
22/04/1995 made application to the office of defendant/MCGM and
correspondence was continued till the receipt of last letter Dtd.
07/02/2017 and legal opinion Dtd. 10/01/2017. It is the grievance of
plaintiff that legal department of defendant/MCGM has earlier in their
legal opinion Dtd. 13/04/2015, 20/04/2016 and 03/08/2016 found
the plaintiff entitled for transferring the suit premises in his name.
However, all of sudden, by the impugned letter and opinion they have
asked to settle the dispute with the daughters of deceased Janabai
Shinwar Nakhwa and if it is not possible, then to bring the order of
competent court about declaration of his civil right in respect of the
suit premises. It is thus, at last, prayed by the plaintiff that in view of
earlier legal opinion expressed in the letter Dtd. 13/04/2015,
20/04/2016 and 03/08/2016, impugned letter and opinion
Dtd.07/02/2017, 10/01/2017 are illegal, and in contravention of
earlier letters, so it is to be declared as null and void and once it is
declared so, defendant/MCGM be directed to transfer the suit premises
in his favour.
-- 3 of 7 --
4
4. Despite of sufficient opportunity, defendant/MCGM has
failed to file their written statement on record, so vide order Dtd.
02/02/2021 passed by my Predecessor, suit is proceeded without
written statement.
5. The following points arise for determination and my
findings thereon with the reasons as under.
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Does the plaintiff prove that letter and opinion
given on 07/02/2017 and 10/01/2017 are
illegal, null and void as alleged?
-- No --
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration and mandatory injunction as
prayed?
-- No --
3. What order? Suit is
Dismissed
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 and 2:-
6 In order to prove the suit claim, plaintiff examined himself
at Exh.6 and relied upon the documents i.e. applications moved by him
Dtd. 22/04/1995, 25/11/1999, affidavit Dtd. 22/04/2013 executed by
the daughter of deceased Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa namely Motabai,
Archana and Ranjana, letter of defendant/MCGM Dtd.19/07/2014,
19/12/20114, 08/07/2015, 14/09/2015, 26/08/2016, 17/01/2017,
07/02/2017 issued to their law officer, competent authority, to the
daughter of deceased Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa namely Motabai and
lastly to the plaintiff respectively, opinion of law officer of
defendant/MCGM Dtd.13/04/2015, 20/04/2016, 03/08/2016 which
are marked as Exh.11, 13, 14 and 15 to 26.
-- 4 of 7 --
5
Suit No. 1381/2019
Rajendra Mingel Koli V/s MCGM
7. Defendant/MCGM though the written statement is not
filed by them but on law point plaintiff is cross examined. The plaintiff
has reiterated the same facts which he averred in the plaint and tried
to establish that once the law officer of defendant/MCGM gave their
opinion for transferring the suit premises in his favour, then how and
in what capacity subsequently asked him for settling the dispute with
the daughters of deceased Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa otherwise to
obtain order of competent Court of declaration of his civil rights of
entitlement of getting transfer the suit premises in his name.
8. I have gone through the applications of plaintiff Exh.15,
16, letter issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Exh.17 and opinion of
law officer of the defendant/MCGM Exh.19, 22 and 24. No doubt, on
the basis of applications of plaintiff, defendant/MCGM has asked the
plaintiff to fulfill the requirement for transfer of the suit premises in his
name. In response, plaintiff has complied with the requirements but
meanwhile one of the daughter of deceased Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa
namely Motabai and Archana have taken their objection for transfer of
the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff. It is true that earlier in
point of time, both have executed affidavit in favour of the plaintiff,
but later on turned down from the said affidavit. Therefore,
defendant/MCGM by their letter Dtd.17/01/2017, 07/02/2017 and
opinion of the legal officer Dtd.10/01/2017, called upon the plaintiff
to file order of the competent Court about declaration of his civil rights
in respect of the suit premises. Basically opinion given by any person
cannot be said as illegal because it is totally based on the knowledge
-- 5 of 7 --
6
and experience of that concerned person. In view of the objection of
daughters Motabai and Archana, if the defendant/MCGM has asked
the plaintiff for settling the dispute with the daughters of deceased
Janabai Shinwar Nakhwa and produce the copy of the order of Court
in that regard, I think, there is nothing illegal and liable to be set aside.
Hence, taking into consideration the above said factual position, I
come to the conclusion that plaintiff has miserably failed to establish
the suit claim for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction
asked against defendant/ MCGM, so accordingly, point No.1 and 2 is
answered in negative and for point No.3, passed the following order.
ORDER
1. Suit is dismissed.
2. Plaintiff to bear his costs of the suit.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly
4. Dictated and pronounced in the open court.
Date: 12th March, 2025.
(R. S. Aradhye)
Judge
City Civil Court
Mumbai
Dictated on :12/03/2025.
Transcribed on :15/03/2025.
Signed on :17/03/2025.
-- 6 of 7 --
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
18/03/2025. 01.47 p.m. (Santosh B. Sawant )
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
No.)
HHJ Shri. R. S. Aradhye
(C.R.No.05)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
12/03/2025.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.on 17/03/2025.
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 18/03/2025.
-- 7 of 7 --