Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
MHCC010069032019
Presented on : 08-07-2019
Registered on : 08-07-2019
Decided on : 08.12.2025
Duration : - 6 Y 5 M 0 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2514 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 1603 OF 2019
Ms. Rajinder Kaur Mokha ... Plaintiff
- Versus -
Mr. Surinder Singh Mokha … Defendant
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. H. C. SHENDE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2025.
Appearance :-
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Mohammed Taha, Advocate for defendant.
O R D E R
The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
They both are brothers and the suit is pertaining to the property ie. Gala
Page 1/8
-- 1 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
bearing No. 31-B, admeasuring 965 sq, ft. (built up area) on the ground
floor of New Unique Industrial Estate Premises Co-operative Society
Ltd., located at New Unique Industrial Estate, Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund
(West), Mumbai 400 080.
2. As per the plaintiff, on or about 22.07.1984, plaintiff and
defendant jointly acquire right, title and interest in the suit premises by
entering into an agreement dated 22.07.1984 by payment of lawful
monetary consideration of Rs. 1,93,000/- (Rs. One lac ninety three
thousand only). However, after about the year 2010, premises
remained locked, unused by the plaintiff or defendant due to some
dispute and differences between them. Thereafter on or about
09.07.2016, New Unique Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.
issued letter to the plaintiff informing that, in their records copy of the
Agreement dated 22.07.1984 is not available, but in the register
maintained by them the name of the plaintiff as well as the defendant is
reflecting as the joint owners of the suit premises. The defendant,
however, not co-operated the plaintiff on this issue.
3. Therefore, on or about April 2019, the proceeding initiated
by the plaintiff for the reasons that monthly bill raised by New Unique
Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. are not being paid either
by the plaintiff or the defendant and the arrears have accumulated to a
substantial amount putting the suit premises to the risk of being
auctioned in the due course.
Page 2/8
-- 2 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
4. Further the plaintiff got information that, the defendant
without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff going to create third
party interest in suit property and as there was dispute in between
families of plaintiff and defendant, the suit by asking various reliefs
including partition, declaration and injunction against the defendant
therefore filed by the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, they both have
acquired 50% share in the property. Defendant may purchase 50% or
he may allow plaintiff to purchase 50% rights in the property. So that,
damage will not get cause to the suit premises. Now by way of this
Notice of Motion, plaintiff has asking to restrain the defendant from
creating third party right in the suit premises by appointing Court
Receiver to manage and take care of the suit premises, to allow the
plaintiff to use the suit premises, to allow him to give on leave and
license, give directions to the plaintiff and defendant to pay monthly
bills of New Unique Industrial Estate Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.
including the arrears till final decision of the suit.
5. The defendant resisted the contention of the plaintiff on
the ground that, the suit and the Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff
is false and based on fabricated facts. In fact, the suit property was
purchased from the fund of the partnership firm by way of Partnership
Deed dated 01.01.1984 to the premises mentioned in the Partnership
Deed. The property purchased with clear understanding between the
parties that the property shall exclusively belong to the said firm and no
party shall have any individual claim over the property. However, after
purchasing the same, plaintiff wish to purchase another property being
Page 3/8
-- 3 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
residential flat and wished to withdraw her share from the partnership
business and therefore during the period of 1990 to 1991, the plaintiff
has withdrawn share by taking the amount of Rs. 3,05,000/- (Rs. Three
lac five thousand only) towards payment of flat in ‘Sky Pan A’ building
at Andheri. The plaintiff has already withdrawn considerable amount
from Partnership Firm’s account and there was verbal understanding
between the parties that the plaintiff shall not claim any share in the
business since after the year 1990.
6. The defendant has been taking care of the suit property,
paying maintenance and expenses for the regular up keep of the suit
property. The defendant has spent almost an amount of Rs. 7,33,495/-
(Rs. Seven lacs thirty three thousand four hundred ninety five only) to
maintain the property. That agreement stands vacated. Suit premises
acquired by both of them but it was actually acquired out of partnership
fund and for partnership business of the parties. The plaintiff did not
have execute the agreement because of the differences. The plaintiff
has already given up all the rights in the suit premises. Now the
defendant is free to deal with the suit property in the manner and it is
duty of the plaintiff to co-operate for the same. So before granting any
prayer of the plaintiff, Court should consider the amount spent by the
defendant over the period of 30 years in respect of the suit property.
The plaintiff is also legally bound to share in equal proportion if she
wants equal share in suit property.
7. Heard both the sides. Perused the record.
Page 4/8
-- 4 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
8. As per the plaintiff, the suit property purchased by the
plaintiff and the defendant jointly in the year 1984 by way of
Agreement dated 22.07.1984 i.e. Exhibit A annexed with the plaint.
Even if we go through the submission made by the plaintiff, and the
record prima facially it reveals that, the defendant have to show that
property was purchased by them out of the partnership fund and with
clear understanding that, the property belongs to the partnership firm.
However, defendant did not put up before the Court any prima facie
record in support of his claim that the suit property which described in
Exhibit A in Agreement dated 22.07.1984 is purchased by the
partnership firm. The agreement place before Court speaks that, the
parties in their individual capacity entered into an agreement and not as
partners. In the absence of any documentary proof in that regard, the
contentions of the defendant that it is partnership property or
purchased from the partnership fund cannot be accepted. So also,
though it has been argued by the defendant that, plaintiff has already
withdraw her share in the property, there is no deed, letter,
relinquishment on the part of plaintiff. Defendant speaks about
withdrawal of claim by plaintiff, so it is for the defendant to deal with
the property as law abiding man. Once accepted that the defendant
have executed an agreement in the year 1984, alongwith the plaintiff
then he cannot deny the joint ownership of the plaintiff over the same.
9. It is not denied by the plaintiff that the payment of bill of
New Unique Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. made by the
defendant. So also it is no where averment of the plaintiff that, she has
Page 5/8
-- 5 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
paid any dues of the society in last almost 30 years. She has accepted
that, some payment must have been made by the defendant. The total
payment or details of the accounts are not before the Court and there is
no question before the Court at this juncture as to what payment is
required to be made by the parties to the Society against the bills. The
Court makes it clear that, defendant and plaintiff as well are jointly
liable to pay the bill of the society if any or so also the further bills if
they want their claim to be continued. The defendant by making
submission that, he has paid the bills for last 30 years, asking the Court
to consider consider it. The Court also taking it into consideration but
only because of payment of bills, maintenance charges, which are paid
by the defendant, does not mean the property legally transferred from
plaintiff to defendant or that the plaintiff relinquish her right or interest
in the property. The record no where speaks that, plaintiff has already
withdraw her share in the property. The right of plaintiff cannot be
denied by legal reason.
At this stage, Court wants to make it clear that, as far as
the legal charges, payment to the concerned society, bills etc. are
concerned, prima facie and at least till final decision of suit the plaintiff
and defendant are jointly liable to pay the same. So the Court find it
necessary that some orders needs to be issued to protect the property
from being alienated by anybodys overtact. So also feel it necessary to
give directions to the plaintiff to contribute her share towards the bills,
payments required to be paid to the society from January 2026 onwards
and they both can it together and can settled account in between them
if at all the charges already been paid by the defendant alongwith
Page 6/8
-- 6 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
liability of payment of the plaintiff. The Court is giving order for the
same, as per final order.
10. In view of the facts and circumstance and as prima facie
case is there in favour of the plaintiff that her share will get defeated
from the suit property so there is need to give directions to defendant or
any person acting for and on behalf of defendant not to create third
party right, interest in property. However, no case made out by the
plaintiff at this stage for appointment of Court Receiver or Court
Commissioner.
11. The plaintiff also asking for direction that she may allow to
occupy the property. However, plaintiff who fail to make payment of
dues, legal charges to the society authority since last 30 years, not in
possession of the property, then at this primary stage, the injunction in
the form of mandatory direction, cannot be granted. It would be a final
adjudication of matter. So this issue kept open by the Court. However,
on the backdrop of the facts mentioned above in present circumstances
the Court proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No. 2514/2019 in suit No.1603/2019 is
partly allowed.
2. The defendant or any person acting on behalf of defendant
are hereby restrained from creating third party right,
interest in the suit premises till final disposal of the suit.
Page 7/8
-- 7 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
3. The plaintiff and the defendant are hereby directed to pay
monthly bill, legal charges, lying against property so also
monthly bills of the New Unique Industrial Premises Co-
operative Society Ltd. from January 2026 onwards till final
disposal of the suit.
4. Thereafter as the dues or arrears paid by the
defendant/remained unpaid, concerned parties are at
liberty to settle the account of the same. However, this
issue is also kept open till final decision of the suit.
5. Proceeding of Notice of Motion No. 2514/2019 in suit
No.1603/2019 is closed.
Date : 08.12.2025 (H. C. Shende )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 08.12.2025
Transcribed on : 08.12.2025
Checked on & signed on : 09.12.2025
Page 8/8
-- 8 of 9 --
N/M. No.2514/2019 (Suit No.1603/2019)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
09.12.2025 at 4.00 pm ( Aparna V. Lele)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt.H. C. Shende (C.R.No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
08.12.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
09.12.2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 09.12.2025
Page 9/8
-- 9 of 9 --