Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHCC010062492019 Received on : 21/06/2019
Registered on : 26/06/2019
Decided on : 20/08/2026
Duration : 07Y, 01 M, 29D
Exh.----
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
S.C. SUIT NO.1595 OF 2019
Rehamunissa W/O Shahid Ali Sayyed
Aged about 53 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Muslim Adult, Occ : Housewife,
Residing at Sindhi Chawl, Near Chirag
Nagar Police Station, Chirag Nagar,
L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai 400 086. ….Plaintiff
V/s
1. Wajid Ali Sayyed S/O Shahid Ali Sayyed
Age : 53 years, Muslim Adult,
Indian Inhabitant,
Occ : Business.
2. Seems W/O Wajid Ali Sayyed
Age : 51 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Housewife,
Both are residing of Anjuman Resalat
Gaffur Seth Khadi Machine, Hill No.4,
Azad Nagar, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai 400 086.
3. Rashid Ali Sayyed S/O Shahid Ali Sayyed
Age : 50 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Business.
4. Rizwana W/O Rashid Ali Sayyed
Age : 40 years, Muslim, Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Housewife,
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment (2) S.C. Suit No.1595/19
Both are residing of Room No.36,
Opp. Subedar High School, Achanak
Nagar, Kaanch Company, Azad Nagar,
Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai 400 086.
5. Wahid Ali Sayyed S/O Shahid Ali Sayyed
Age : 44 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Business.
6. Tarannum W/O Wahid Ali Sayyed
Age : 40 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Housewife,
Both are residing of Near Primary Little
School, Behind Bhangi Chawl, L.B.S. Road,
Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai 400 086.
7. Irshad Ali Sayyed S/O Shahid Ali Sayyed
Age : 41 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Service.
8. Samina W/O Irshad Ali Sayyed
Age : 51 years, Muslim Adult, Indian
Inhabitant, Occ : Housewife.
Both are residing of Sudhar Seva Society,
Azad Nagar, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai 400 086. .… Defendants
Appearances :
Adv. Rakesh Singh i/b K. Juris for plaintiff.
None for defendants
CORAM : D. R. DESHPANDE
JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.02)
DATE : 20th August, 2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for declaration that the threats given by defendants
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment (3) S.C. Suit No. 1595/19
are illegal and not executable on plaintiff with permanent injunction
restraining defendants from entering into, remaining upon, the suit
property, and from disturbing plaintiff’s use, occupation and enjoyment
of the suit property without following due process of law.
2. Case of plaintiff: The husband of plaintiff Mr. Shahid Ali acquired
the suit premises from one Kishinchand in the year 1960 and started
residing and carrying on business of fruits in the premises. He died on
26.11.2014, and since then, plaintiff is in use, occupation and peaceful
possession of the suit property. Plaintiff’s husband acquired one more
residential premises at Ghatkopar and handed over the same to the first
wife.. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai issued notice to plaintiff
under Section 68 of M.M.C. Act and partly demolished the suit
premises. Apprehending further demolition, she filed Suit No. 368/2019
before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. However the office of M.C.G.M.
pressurized plaintiff to vacate the suit premises and assaulted plaintiff.
Defendant alongwith goons came to the suit premises and threatened to
dire consequences if they did not vacate the suit premises. Hence, the
suit.
3. Case of defendants: Suit is false. Plaintiff never had resided
in the suit premises after the demise of her husband. Rather, defendants
i.e. real sons of Mr. Shahid Ali have been given suit premises and they
have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit premises. Only to
grab the property, they are about to dispossess plaintiff. Hence, the
prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs.
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment (4) S.C. Suit No.1595/19
4. Preliminary Objection: The suit was posted for framing of
issues. However, the learned advocate for defendants raised preliminary
objection that the suit premises have been demolished and the cause of
action stood abated so that the suit needs to be dismissed for the
extinguishment of cause of action.
5. In view of the preliminary objection, the following are the points
for determination alongwith my findings thereon for the reasons
ensuing:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether cause of action in the suit survives
after demolition of the suit premises by the
statutory competent authority ?
No.
2. What order ? Suit is dismissed
as per final order.
REASONS
6. Point No.1 : Heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties. The learned advocate for defendants has submitted that plaintiff
has never based her case on the acquisition of lawful title as there is no
document to that effect alongwith the plaint, and hence, her prayer
being only for injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing
plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law, the demolition of suit
premises causing loss of physical possession of the plaintiff relinquishes
the cause of action in the suit, which is
interference into physical
possession of the suit property, and no more.
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment (5) S.C. Suit No. 1595/19
7. The learned advocate for plaintiff has conceded to the said
position of demolition of the suit premises by the local authority and
plaintiff having lost the physical possession, dis-possession of which is
sought to be restrained. Considering the admission of plaintiff in this
regard, it stands established, that the suit premises are demolished and
plaintiff has lost physical possession of the suit premises.
8. Once plaintiff looses the physical possession of the suit
premises and there being no claim to the acquisition of lawful tittle to
the suit property by her husband so as to entitle plaintiff to regain the
possession of the suit property lost by plaintiff and her only prayer
being to protect her physical possession from being wrongfully
disturbed otherwise than in due course of law, the loss of physical
possession, which is not re-gainable, extinguishes the cause of action in
the suit, so that, nothing survives in this suit for being granted as relief.
9. Accordingly, the finding to preliminary objection i.e. point
No.1 is recorded..
10. Point No.2 : In view of the finding to the preliminary
objection, suit is liable to be dismissed for extinguishment of the cause
of action in the suit.
11. In the circumstances, in which, plaintiff is loosing the legal
battle, there has to be an exception to the general rule of costs,
“Costs
shall follow the event”.
In the result, , I pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Suit is dismissed with costs
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment (6) S.C. Suit No.1595/19
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and is pronounced in Open Court.)
(D.R. Deshpande)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 20.08.2026 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 20.08.2026
Transcribed on : 20.08.2026
Checked &Signed on : 21.08.2026
-- 6 of 7 --
Judgment (7) S.C. Suit No. 1595/19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
21.08.2026 At 1.05 P.M. J.S.CHAVAN
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF THE STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room Number)
HHJ D.R. DESHPANDE
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
(C.R.NO.02)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/ Order
20.08.2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.
on
21.08.2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 21.08.2026
-- 7 of 7 --