1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1367 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1367 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1367 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUIT NO.1332 OF 2003 SUIT NO.1332 OF 2003 SUIT NO.1332 OF 2003 Sugandha Manohar Koli & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. M/s.Nightingales Co.Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants ----- Ms.Yusnin Tavaria i/b. D.A.Barot for Plaintiffs Mr.P.B.Shah for Defendant Nos.1,4 & 5 Mr.A.S.Rai for Defendant No.2 CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. DATED: 7TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 7TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 7TH JULY, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Plaintiffs claim through one Maria who 1. The Plaintiffs claim through one Maria who 1. The Plaintiffs claim through one Maria who left behind two sons Mahadev and Balkrishna. Maria’s left behind two sons Mahadev and Balkrishna. Maria’s left behind two sons Mahadev and Balkrishna. Maria’s brother one Ramchandra, is stated to have made some brother one Ramchandra, is stated to have made some brother one Ramchandra, is stated to have made some mutation entries in the Revenue records to claim the mutation entries in the Revenue records to claim the mutation entries in the Revenue records to claim the properties belonging to Maria as his own. The properties belonging to Maria as his own. The properties belonging to Maria as his own. The Plaintiffs have remedy against successors in title of Plaintiffs have remedy against successors in title of Plaintiffs have remedy against successors in title of the Ramchandra for the properties so transferred if the Ramchandra for the properties so transferred if the Ramchandra for the properties so transferred if the Plaintiffs prove at the trial that the entries the Plaintiffs prove at the trial that the entries the Plaintiffs prove at the trial that the entries were made surreptitiously as alleged by the were made surreptitiously as alleged by the were made surreptitiously as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs. 2. Ramchandra has sought to dispose of and sell 2. Ramchandra has sought to dispose of and sell 2. Ramchandra has sought to dispose of and sell the suit properties to Defendant No.2 where the the suit properties to Defendant No.2 where the the suit properties to Defendant No.2 where the Society of Defendant No.1 has come up. The Plaintiffs Society of Defendant No.1 has come up. The Plaintiffs Society of Defendant No.1 has come up. The Plaintiffs claim the relief of injunction against construction by claim the relief of injunction against construction by claim the relief of injunction against construction by Defendants 1 and 2 and also the mandatory injunction Defendants 1 and 2 and also the mandatory injunction Defendants 1 and 2 and also the mandatory injunction 2 for demolition of the constructed property. for demolition of the constructed property. for demolition of the constructed property. Plaintiffs also claim further injunctions against the Plaintiffs also claim further injunctions against the Plaintiffs also claim further injunctions against the induction by Defendants 1 and 2 and compensation mesne induction by Defendants 1 and 2 and compensation mesne induction by Defendants 1 and 2 and compensation mesne profits from them. profits from them. profits from them. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 have developed the suit 3. Defendants 1 and 2 have developed the suit 3. Defendants 1 and 2 have developed the suit plot of land under the agreement dated 19th May, 1988. plot of land under the agreement dated 19th May, 1988. plot of land under the agreement dated 19th May, 1988. They have taken the property for consideration. That They have taken the property for consideration. That They have taken the property for consideration. That consideration must be taken to be at the market value consideration must be taken to be at the market value consideration must be taken to be at the market value then prevailing. Defendants 1 and 2 have therefore then prevailing. Defendants 1 and 2 have therefore then prevailing. Defendants 1 and 2 have therefore acquired their rights to develop and construct. The acquired their rights to develop and construct. The acquired their rights to develop and construct. The Plaintiffs remedies are essentially against their Plaintiffs remedies are essentially against their Plaintiffs remedies are essentially against their cousins who are Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs cousins who are Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs cousins who are Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs will be entitled to a proportionate share in the will be entitled to a proportionate share in the will be entitled to a proportionate share in the consideration received under the said agreement by consideration received under the said agreement by consideration received under the said agreement by Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs cannot stop Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs cannot stop Defendants 3 to 13. The Plaintiffs cannot stop construction or development by Defendants 1 and 2 who construction or development by Defendants 1 and 2 who construction or development by Defendants 1 and 2 who are purchasers for value. are purchasers for value. are purchasers for value. 4. No order on the Notice of Motion. 4. No order on the Notice of Motion. 4. No order on the Notice of Motion. 5. No order as to costs. 5. No order as to costs. 5. No order as to costs. (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)