1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEALS NOS. 2314 TO F.A.NO.2334 OF 2008 ALONG WITH F.A. NO. 599/2008, 1060/2008 TO 1065/2008, F.A.NO.1089/08 TO 1096/08,1179/08 TO 1184/08 & F.A.2563/07 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2314 OF 2008 Siddiqui Rqmzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants. Vs. Vishwanath Jayashree Pandey & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2315 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Hitesh V. Trivedi and Ors. .. Respodents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Jasumati Ben D.Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Kasturben C. Bhatt & Ors. .. Respodents 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2318 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Lalmani R. Pandey & Ors. .. Respodents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2319 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Godavariben P. Thakkar & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2320 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Chiman H. Joshi .. Respondent FIRST APPEAL NO.2321 of 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra &Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Kantilal Varia & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2322 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Dayashankar h. Joshi & Ors. .. Respodents 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2008 Siddiqui Raman Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants vs. Umayaben B. Bhatt & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Laljibhai P.Varia & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2325 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Radhakrishna r. Belkar &Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2326 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellans Vs. Dhirajben C. Chauhan and Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Hiraqlal Keshavji Soni & Ors. .. Resondents FIRST APPEAL l NO. 2328 of 2008 4 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Mandhar R. Pathey and Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO.2329 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra &Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Jayrambhai Bhanushali & Ors. .. Respoondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2330 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Manaji Bhimji Chandra & Ors. .. Responents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2331 OF 2008 Siddiqu Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Motiben Gokuldas Varia & Ors. .. Respodents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2332 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Madhuben Kanji & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2333 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. V.K.Parmar & Ors. .. Respondents 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2008 Siddiqui Ramzan Mandra & Ors. .. Appellants Vs. Vallabh Lathia &Ors. .. Respodents Mr.Krishna N.Kore,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. J.M.Patil, advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Navin Parekh, Senior Counsel i/b. Lalit Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. Jagdish B. Chaudhary, Advocate, i/b. M/s. Nankani & Associates for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Lalmani R. Pandey & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. 6 Smt. Dhirajben C. Chauhan & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Vallabh Lathia & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Smt. Umayaben B. Bhatt & Ors. .. Respndents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Godavariben P. Thakkar & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1064 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. ... Appellants Vs. Shri Jayrambhai Bhanushali &Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Chiman H. Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & anr. .. Appellants 7 Vs. Shri Hiralal Keshavji Soni & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants vs. Advocate V.K.Parmar & Ors. .. Respndents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1091 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. Appellants Vs. Vishwanath J. Pandey & Ors. ... Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. ... Appellants Vs. Shri radhakrishna R. Belkar & Ors. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1093 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants vs. Shri Hitesh V. Trivei & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL N. 1094 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appelants Vs. Smt. Kasturben C. Bhatt & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants 8 Vs. Shri Manaji B. Chandra & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1096 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Manohar R. Pathey & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Kantilal Varia & Ors. .. Respndents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1181 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Laljibhai P. Varia & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1182 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang &Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Smt. Motiben G. Varia & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2008 Anil M. Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Smt. Jasumatiben D. Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. 9 Shri Dayashankar H. Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1179 OF 2008 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Smt. Madhuben Kanji & Ors. .. Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 2563 OF 2007 Anil Mohanlal Narang & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Dinesh C. Bhatt & Ors. .. Respondents Shri Giish S. Godbole a/w I.J.Nankani and Kumar Tolani i/b. M/s. Nankani & Associates, Advocates, for the appellants. Shri J.M.Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Shri Navin Parekh a/w. Suresh Gole i/b. Lalit V. Jain Advocates, for the Respondent No.2. Shri K.N.Kore, advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 10. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. All these Appeals are directed against the common Judgment dated 10 24/25/26.7.2007 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in a group of 22 suits. 2. To state in brief, all the 22 Short Cause Suits were filed by the tenants, who are in occupation of certain portions of the building known as “Ambika Bhavan”, situated on Plot No.189, R.B Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai 400 077. According to the plaintiffs/tenants, one Ramzan Salemohamed was the owner of the land and he had appointed one Mohan S. Narang to develop the said plots 188, 189, and 192. Accordingly, Mohan S. Narang constructed three buildings known as “Kumkum Kavita”, “Janki Kutir” and “Ambika Bhavan”. It is alleged that Mohan S.Narang handed over possession of 33 rooms in Ambika Bhavan to them on ownership basis. In August 1994, the plaintiffs received the notice from Ramzan Salemohamed and Ashama Salemhamed claiming their title over Ambika Bhavan. In July 1995, defendant no.1 addressed a letter to the occupants of Ambika Bhavan that he had received the rights of development. In 2002, defendant No.2 informed the plaintiffs that he had obtained rights of development and he expressed his intention to develop the property.The defendant No.1, in each of these suits, claimed to have purchased the suit property for the purpose of demolition and re-development. Defendant No.1 also filed eviction suits against the tenants before the Small Cause Court, The defendant No.2, another developer, also claimed that he has 11 acquired the suit property for re-development from Defendants Nos. 3 to 9. The tenants were in dilemma as to who is the real owner of the property and who has the right of development. Therefore, these suits were filed under Section 88 read with Order XXXV Civil Procedure Code as interpleader suits with a request to the Court to decide as to who is the owner between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and who has right of re-development. 3. While defendants Nos. 1 and 2 disclosed different sources of their title or the right over the property, defendants Nos. 3 to 9, who claimed to be the original owners of the land, denied the right of defendant No.1 as well as defendant no.2. According to them, defendant No.2 had entered into an agreement with them for the development but as he had not fulfilled certain conditions of that agreement, the said agreement was terminated and therefore the defendant no.2 did not have any right over the property. In view of this, defendant Nos. 3 to 9 claimed exclusive title over the property. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, who were impleaded later on, filed the Written Statement and denied the title of defendants Nos. 1 to 9. According to them, original owner, Ramzan Salemohamed and others had sold and transferred the suit property to Mohan S. Narang and his father and thus they are the owners of the property. 12 4. The trial Court framed certain issues. Out of them, issue no.1, 3 and 4 are practically about the maintainability of interpleader suits. Issue no.2 puts burden on defendant No.1 to prove that he is the landlord of the plaintiffs. No other issue was framed about the title claimed by defendant No.2 or defendants Nos. 3 to 9 or defendant Nos. 10 and 11. The trial Court decided the issue No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and decreed the suit declaring him to be owner of the suit property vide sale deed dated 19.10.1994. Against this judgment and decree, the defendants Nos. 3 to 9 filed 22 appeals bearing Nos.2314 of 2008 to 2334 of 2008 and F.A.No.2563/2007. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 also filed 22 appeals bearing F.A. Nos. 599/2008, 1060/2008 to 1065/2008, 1089/2008 to 1096/2008, 1180/2008 to 1184/2008, F.A. No.1179 of 2008 and F.A.No. 2563/2007 challenging the said judgment. These appeals filed by defendant Nos. 10 and 11 are already admitted, while the other appeals are placed before the Court for admission. Appeals filed by defendants Nos. 10 and 11 are also taken on board today on request of the learned Counsel for the parties. With consent all the appeals are taken up for final hearing and disposed. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out from para 112 of the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court had not considered the execution of certain sale deeds and the evidence led by the parties. In the said 13 paragraph, the trial Court observed as follows :- “112. .... In order to come to the proper conclusion whether Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to 9 have any right, title and interest in suit property, the Court ought to have taken into consideration the legality and validity of execution of Sale Deed of 1969. But at the same time, this Court has not given any findings that Defendant nos. 10 and 11 are not subsisting owner of the suit property. As per Advocate Prabhawalkar this Court was directed to decide the title of Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property, i view of two orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. After going through the said orders, this Court has no second opinion. Accordingly, this Court did not touch the legality and validity of the Sale Deed alleged to be executed by Mr.Chandru Narang in favour of Kantilal Vasanji Thakkar and Ramju Manjoti, but by giving cursory look to the documents it reveals that Defendant No.1 has acquired clear and marketable title of the suit property. In view thereof, this Court has dealt with the said aspect, but has not decided the ownership of Defendant nos. 10 and 11 in respect of the suit property, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of these observations, it becomes clear that the trial Court was fully aware that in order to come to proper conclusion as to whether defendant Nos.1 or 2 or 3 to 9 or 10 and 11 have any right, title or interest in the suit property, the Court should have taken into consideration the legality and validity of the execution of sale deeds of 1969. However, the Court was under an impression 14 that it could not touch the evidence pertaining to the title of defendants Nos. 2 to 11 and, therefore, it ventured upon deciding the title of defendant No.1 on the basis of evidence led by him alone. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants i.e. Defendants Nos. 3 to 9 and 10 and 11 contended that proper issues were not framed by the trial Court taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties. They also pointed out that the defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had filed a Pursis stating that in absence of any issues putting burden of proof on them, they had not led any evidence. In fact, the title of the defendant No.1 or defendant no.2 or defendant Nos. 3 to 9 or the defendant Nos. 10 and 11 could not be decided in piecemeal. For deciding the dispute, it was necessary to frame proper issues on the basis of their respective claims and then the concerned parties should have been required to prove their claims. On the basis of the evidence, which would be led by all the parties, Court could decide as to which of the parties has the title over the property. From the above referred portion from paragraph 112 of the impugned Judgment, it is clear that the trial Court did not consider the claims of the defendants Nos. 2 to 11 and the evidence led by them. At the same time, some of these defendants could not lead evidence properly for want of appropriate issues. 15 7. After some discussion at the Bar with consent of the learned Counsel for all the parties all these appeals are allowed and the impugned Judgment is hereby set aside and all the suits i.e. Short Cause Suit Nos. 1479 of 2007 to Nos.1499 of 2007 and Suit Nos. 1236 of 2007 are hereby remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to frame appropriate issues in the light of the above observations and to decide the same after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. The parties, who have already produced evidence, shall also be at liberty to give additional evidence or if necessary to recall the witnesses who have already been examined for further examination-in-chief or further cross-examination. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suits and shall, as far as possible, decide the same by the end of April, 2010. 8. It is pointed out that defendant Nos. 10 and 11 have also filed Suit No.3701 of 2007 claiming their title over the property and challenging the title of the defendant no.1. That suit is also pending before the City Civil Court. Besides this,two more suits filed by the tenants, bearing Nos. 1522 of 2007 and 4235 of 2007 are also pending before the City Civil Court. Taking into consideration the nature of disputes, all these suits shall be heard and disposed of together by the trial Court. For this purpose, the learned Principal Judge, City 16 Civil Court, Mumbai, shall assign all the suits to one learned Judge for hearing and disposal as per law. 9. In view f the facts and circumstances, in case any decree or order is passed in favour of defendant NO.1 in the eviction suits filed by him before the Small Cause Court, execution of such decrees and orders shall remain stayed pending the final decision of this group of suits. 10. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 12th October, 2009. 11 All the Appeals are disposed of accordingly. 10. All the Civil Applications in all these Appeals do not survive and they are disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)