- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT No. 2284 OF 1991 Mrs. Safiabai A. Pardiwala & Ors. ... Plaintiffs Vs. Suryakant K. More & Anr. ... Defendants *** Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Lokhandwala & Co., for the Plaintiffs None for the defendants. *** CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2009. PC :- 1. The suit is filed for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is the sole owner of the suit premises being a flat in a building in Mumbai and that defendant No.1 is a trespasser therein. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that a purported agreement for sale dated 19th November 1990 is void, illegal and not binding on plaintiff No.1. Finally the plaintiffs have sought an order directing the defendant to hand over possession of the said flat to plaintiff No.1. 2. On behalf of the plaintiff No.1, her son and the constituted attorney was examined by filing his affidavit-in-lieu of - 2 - examination-in-chief. A compilation of documents was also tendered. The same was taken on record and marked “A” (Colly). The defendants remained absent. Thus, the evidence remained unchallenged. 3. It is established from the record that plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the suit flat, having inherited the same from her father. The share certificate stands in the name of plaintiff No.1. Original plaintiff No.2 was the maternal uncle of plaintiff No.1. He had been permitted to occupy the suit flat along with the members of his family as a care taker thereof. Defendant No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.2 had therefore, no right, title and interest in respect of the suit flat. 4. Despite having no right whatsoever in respect of the suit flat, defendant No.2 by the said agreement dated 19th November 1990 purported to transfer the same to defendant No.1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 apparently were in the same organization and are known to each other. Be that as it may, defendant No.2 had no right whatsoever in respect of the flat and was not entitled to transfer the same to defendant No.1 or to any other person. 5. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed. Pursuant to an interim order dated 10th October 1991 in Notice of Motion No. 1957 of 1991 with Notice of Motion No. 1999 of 1991 in the above suit, a Court Receiver was appointed of the suit flat. The Court Receiver was directed to - 3 - appoint original plaintiff No.2 as his agent to use the suit flat without security and without any payment, subject to provision being made for payment of outgoings of the Society. The original plaintiff No.2 having expired during the pendency of the suit, today Plaintiff No. 2 (b) is in possession of the suit flat. 6. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed as prayed in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (i). The costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund of court fees shall be as per rules. 7. After the period for filing an appeal is over, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to withdraw the original documents by substituting the same with xerox copies thereof, certified by the plaintiffs’ advocate to be true copies. The same shall also be subject to the undertaking on behalf of the plaintiffs to furnish the original copies at any stage if called upon by the Court. 8. After the period for filing an appeal expires, the Court Receiver shall stand discharged without passing accounts, but subject to payment of his costs, charges and expenses and the parties presently in occupation shall continue to remain in occupation as per this decree.