1 NMS.3233.2010-SC S.359.1968.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3233 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 359 OF 1968 The Industrial Cr4edit & Investment Corpn., of India Ltd. ...Plaintiff Vs. The Structural Engineering Work Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants And M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. The Court Receiver, High Court Bombay being the Liquidator of Structural Engineering Work Ltd. (In liquidation) ...Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Ms. Aakanksha Thakkar i/b. Purnanand & Co., for Applicant CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. : 1. The Applicant has applied for rectifying the date of Conveyance by insertion of the corresponding CTS numbers alongside the survey numbers shown in the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Applicant. 2. The suit of the Plaintiff filed in 1968 came to be decreed in 1971 against the Defendants. The property of the Defendants was ordered to be sold. The Court Receiver who was appointed in the suit was directed to invite offers. The Applicant made the highest offer of Rs. 1.25 Crores. The offer came to be accepted on 25th May 1974. The 2 NMS.3233.2010-SC S.359.1968.sxw terms of sale were settled. The Court Receiver filed his report for confirmation of the sale on 28th May 1974, which came to be accepted on 31st May 1974. The Applicant paid the requisite consideration and was to be put in possession on 2nd August 1975. 3. Conveyance has been executed in favour of the Applicant by the Court Receiver on 3rd November 1999. The Conveyance mentions the survey numbers of the property conveyed to the Applicant which were shown initially in the suit and in the proceedings of the Applicant before the Court Receiver. 4. It may be mentioned that the initial mortgage was executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff on 11th January 1964. A further charge was created in favour of the Plaintiff Bank on 29th March 1966. At that time CTS numbers were not given to the properties in Mumbai. Hence only survey numbers came to be mentioned in those documents which are reflected in the Conveyance executed in favour of the Plaintiff. 5. The Plaintiff applied for rectification of the record of rights for showing them as owners of the suit properties in the property register card. The City Survey Office objected to the change in the property register cards as the CTS numbers were not mentioned. Since CTS numbers are mentioned in the property register cards the Conveyance Deed in favour of the Plaintiff must show the property in those CTS numbers conveyed to the Plaintiff. 6. Under orders of this Court this information was sought from the City 3 NMS.3233.2010-SC S.359.1968.sxw Survey Office. The information was given to the Government Pleader who was directed to procure it. The Applicant has the 7x12 extracts. The Conveyance Deeds show the survey numbers. The corresponding city survey numbers are issued by the City Survey Officer, Mulund. 7. The Counsel on behalf of the Applicant has tendered the letter of the City Survey Officer addressed to the Assistant Government Pleader investigating the list showing the survey numbers with the corresponding CTS numbers. The Conveyance Deed in favour of the Applicant shall show the CTS numbers corresponding to the survey numbers mentioned in the letter of the City Survey Officer. 8. The Court Receiver shall execute the Deed of Rectification showing the Schedule of the properties conveyed to the Applicant with the survey numbers and the corresponding equivalent CTS numbers. 9. It is clarified that if there is any dispute with regard to the property conveyed to the Applicant the original survey numbers mentioned in the conveyance deed shall prevail. 10.Copy of letter dated 2nd May 2011 of the City Survey Officer, Mulund along with the sheet showing the survey numbers in the corresponding CTS numbers is taken on record. 11.The Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)