Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal ... vs Brijlal Tibrewal And Ors.

4. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

5. That   feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the Suit No. 4111 of 2004, the   original   Defendants   (except   for   Defendant   No.   2   Corporation) preferred the First Appeal No. 466 of 2010 before the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the pendency of the Suit, the Society of the flat purchasers was registered in the name of Agrasen Co­operative Housing Society Ltd. under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960.  Thereafter, during the First Appeal preferred by the original Defendants, in the year 2014, the   Society   initiated   proceedings   before   Divisional   Registrar,   Co­ operative Societies for execution of Conveyance Deed. That, thereafter, the   High Court  dismissed   the Appeal No. 466 of 2010 by  judgment and order dated 04.12.2014.   The High Court specifically held that a Deed   of   Conveyance   of   the   land   to   the   extent   of  the  building   to   be 12 executed within nine months.

5.3 That by impugned order the High Court has dismissed the Civil Application   No.   1698   of   2015   in   First   Appeal   No.   466   of   2010. 14 However,   by   dismissing   the   Civil   Application,   the   High   Court   has further clarified that the appellants shall be entitled to consume the balance FSI of plot of the land.  That by the impugned order, the High Court has also dismissed the Writ Petition No. 992 of 2015 and has confirmed the order of deemed Conveyance for the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq. meters.

8.13 Making   the   above   submission   made   by   Shri   C.A.   Sundaram, learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Appellant   has requested   to   allow   present   Appeals   and   quash   and   set   aside   the impugned orders passed by the High Court.

9.1   Making  above   submission it is requested to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing   the   Writ   Petition   confirming   the   order   of   deemed Conveyance of the land to the extent of 2593.70 sq. meters passed by the Divisional Registrar.

12.5 In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the impugned   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   23.12.14   passed below “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, in First Appeal No.466/2010 and   the   order   dated   04.07.15   passed   in   Civil   Application No.1698/2015   in   First   Appeal   No.466/2010   deserve   to   be   quashed 34 and set aside and the Civil Appeals arising out of the said orders are required to be allowed.

13. So far as the Appeals arising out of the impugned judgment and order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   10.09.2015     in   WP© No.992/2015 is concerned, it appears that the Divisional Registrar of the Co­operative Societies has passed an order of deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq. meters, which was the subject matter in the Writ Petition before the High Court and the High Court by   impugned   judgment   and   order   has   dismissed   the   Writ   Petition confirming   the   order   passed   by   the   Divisional   Registrar   granting deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters. 13.1    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering   the   order   passed   by   the   Divisional   Registrar   of   deemed Conveyance   of   the   area   admeasuring   2593.70   sq.meters,   it   appears that the Divisional Registrar considered the orders passed by the High Court below  “Note for speaking to the Minutes”’ in the First Appeal as well as solely relying upon the property card.   However, as observed hereinabove,     while   deciding   the   Appeals   arising   out   of   the   order passed by the High Court below “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, the   original   Plaintiff­Society   shall   not   be   entitled   to   the   Deed   of 35 Conveyance to the extent of area admeasuring 2700 sq.meters and/or even   2593.70   sq.meters   and   they   shall   be   entitled   to   the   Deed   of Conveyance   of   the   area   admeasuring   1009.70   sq.meters   which   was the built up area of building A­1 and, therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove,  the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court   dated   10.09.2015   in   Writ   Petition   ©   No.992/2015   confirming the order passed by the Divisional Registrar Co­operative Societies of deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters also deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Appeals arising out of the   impugned   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   W.P.   No.  992   of 2015 deserves to be allowed.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.  The impugned orders dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay passed below “Note for speaking to the Minutes” in First Appeal No.466/2010 as well as the   impugned   order   dated  04.07.2015  passed  by  the  High  Court  of Bombay   in   Civil   Application   No.1698   of   2015   in   First   Appeal No.466/2010 are hereby quashed and set aside.

15. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 10.04.2015 in Writ Petition © No.992/2015 confirming 36 the   order   passed   by   the   Divisional   Registrar   of       the     Co­operative Societies   of   deemed   Conveyance   of   the   area   admeasuring   2593.70 sq.meters is also hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the order passed by the Divisional Registrar of Deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters is hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed and the same is modified to the extent of granting deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 1009.70 sq.meters only. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

16. In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   cases,   there   will   be   no order   as   to   costs.       In   view   of   the   disposal   of   the   Appeals,   the Contempt Petitions as well as the interlocutory application pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.