1 Lsp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 210 of 2008 IN SUIT NO. 650 of 2004 Smt. Sumati Wd./o. Raja Nadar & Ors. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Solai Chandrashekhar Nadar & Ors. ....Defendants Devilal R. Chhajed ..Obstructionist/ Occupant Veena R. Gautam i/b. Pandey & Co. for the plaintiffs Mr. G.R.Mishra for defendants Mr. D.H.Shah-Obstructionist. Mr. D.V.Deokar, 1st Asstt. to Court Receiver. CORAM:- SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J 4th August, 2008 P.C. Defendant No. 2 had purchased the Suit property from a Builder in 1997. He had continued in possession from 1997 to 2004. In 2004 the suit came to be filed by his sister- in-law who claimed a share of her deceased husband who was the brother of the defendants. Court Receiver came to be appointed on 28th July, 2004. The Receiver came into possession on 26th August, 2004. Defendant No. 2, who had 2 purchased the premises from the Builder, was appointed Court Receiver's Agent. The parties filed consent terms in the suit on 21-12-2005. Pursuant to the consent terms, the suit came to be disposed off and Court Receiver came to be discharged. In clause-2 of the Consent Terms the Court Receiver was to hand over possession of suit premises to defendant no. 1, the brother of defendant no.2. 2. So soon as the Court Receiver was discharged, defendant no. 2 would once again be in possession of the premises purchased by him in his own capacity and not as the agent of the Court Receiver. He would continue in possession. So far as possession of the suit premises is concerned, the appointment or discharge of the Court Receiver would make no difference to the builder who already had entered into an agreement with defendant no. 2 , seven years ago or any other 3rd party who was not concerned with the suit premises. 3. However, 5 days after the discharge of the Court Receiver, the builder is said to have entered into an agreement with the obstructionist herein. The obstructionist claims that he is the bonafide purchasor for value without notice of the title of defendant no. 2. 3 4. Defendant no. 2 was hospitalised from 25-2-2006 to 24-3-2007. Whilst defendant no. 2 was in hospital, the Court Receiver handed over possession of the suit premises to defendant no.1 on 2-3-2006. Defendant No. 2 kept the premises locked. 5. Soon after that on 13-3-2006 the obstructionist has got registered an agreement dated 26-12-2005 for which stamp duty was paid earlier on 16-9-2005 as per registration on 13-3-2006. The obstructionist claims that he was handed over possession by the Builder on 25-3-2006. 6. This was the period during which defendant no.2 was hospitalised and the premises was kept locked by defendant no.1. This was after the consent terms was signed between the parties and receiver stood discharged. 7. The contention of the obstructionist that he is the bonafide purchasor of the suit premises of the Builder without notice of title of defendant no. 1 cannot be understood. Defendant No. 1 had title to the premises since 1997. He had a family litigation. He may do what he may deems fit with his own property. He has not transferred it to any person. The Builder has no title once the premises is 4 sold to defendant no.2. No party can transfer a better title than what he has. The Builder, therefore, cannot transfer any title in the suit premises to defendant no.2 for any value. It is for the obstructionist to inspect the title before he purchases the property. This property had no title that could be transferred by the Builder. Hence, the obstructionist has not shown any title in himself. Consequently, he has no legal right to claim possession. 8. He contends that strangely in the already disposed off suit, parties took out the notice of motion No. 1045/2008 and obtain an order by consent of the parties to the suit on 24-3-2008 under which the previous arrangement was to continue. Though that may be a strange circumstance, the fact remains that even without such consent order, no 3rd party can be taken to have any right in the suit premises. The Court Receiver desires to obtain directions to implement the order dated 24-3-2008. He has applied for police assistance to comply with the order dated 24-3-2008. 9. Since it is seen that the suit has been disposed off and Court Receiver stood discharged and has handed over possession to defendant no.1 and soon thereafter the obstructionist has completely wrongly claimed possession of 5 the suit premises under an agreement earlier entered into for which stamp duty was even earlier paid, the entire transaction in favour of the obstructionist was accentuated by the discharge of the Court Receiver and the fact of the hospitalisation of the defendant no. 2 so that the premises remain locked over a period of months. Consequently, the order dated 24-3-2008 needs to be complied. Since the obstructionist has been found in the suit premises after the Court Receiver handed over possession to defendant no. 1 and the premises continued to belong to defendant no.2, the Court Receiver must be given police assistance to implement the order dated 24-3-2008. The Court Receiver' s report is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Senior Inspector of relevant police station shall render all assistance to the Court Receiver in respect of Shop No. 4 in Ruby Monarch Arcade, Opposite Saki naka Post Office, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-72, to recover possession of suit premises for which the Court Receiver was appointed on 28- 7-2004. 10. Order in terms of prayer(b) has already been passed and shall be complied with. This order is stayed for two weeks. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J)