PRACHI v. Romell Housing LLP

Judgment

1. Romell Housing LLP, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, having office at : Gharkul Housing CHS, B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057.

2. M/s. Velentine Properties Pvt. Ltd., Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, Registered Address at 7th Floor, Lalani Aura, 34th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050.

3. Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, Registered Address at Gharkul Housing CHS, B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057. ppn 2 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

6. Thomas Pereira an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rizvi Heights, 101, Gabriel Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-40 016. Anthony Pereira an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rose Sadan, Flat No.9, 3, Rebello Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050. Juliet Alves an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rose Sadan, Flat No.1, 3, Rebello Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050.

7. Mabel Pereira an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at 8, Agnelo Abodes Carmel CHS, St. John Baptist Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050.

9. Philomena D’Silva an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rose Sadan, Flat No.12, 3rd Floor, Opp. K.C. Hostel, Off. Veronica Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050. Alice D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rizvi Heights, 101, Gabriel Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016. ppn 3 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

10. Jorge D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rizvi Heights, 101, Gabriel Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016.

11. Gabrieal Pereira an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at 138/3, Bairao Alto, Assagao, Bardez, Goa-403 507.

12. Xavier Pereira an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Rizvi Heights, 201, 2nd Floor, Gabriel Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016.

13. Renton D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at 596, Bhoiwada Village, Parel, Mumbai-400 012.

15. Savio D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at 596, Bhoiwada Village, Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Sabra D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at B/17, Municipal Building, Sion, Agarwada, Mumbai-400 012.

16. Ruby D’Souza an adult, Indian inhabitant, Occ. Not Known, Residing at Paul Patel House, Chakala Village, Near Shiv Sena Shakha, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 099. ppn 4 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

17. The Sub-Registrar Office, Borivali No.3, District Bandra, Mumbai Suburban.

18. The City Survey Officer & Tehsildar Tehsildar Building, 2nd/3rd Floor, Natakwala Lane, S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092.

19. Talathi Dahisar Village, Aksar Road, Ashok Nagar, Opposite Ajit Palace, CKP Colony, Haridas Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092.

20. Court Receiver Court Receiver Office, Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Sultana Shaikh

21. Flat No.102, Sunrock Residency, Near Haidery Chowk, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane- 401 107.

22. Mr. Manpreet Singh Claiming to be a Partner of M/s. Schumi India Residing at 4, Bhushan Building, R. K. Mission Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052.

23. Viking Motors Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Company having its office at Survey No.97/C, ppn 5 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx Next to Dahisar Bus Depot, Off. Western Express Highway, Dahisar (East), Mumbai - 400 068. … Defendants WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.31242 OF 2025 IN SUIT NO.158 OF 2024 1A. Asiya Salim Shaikh Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife 1B. Asad Salim Shaikh Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Both residing at Amir House, Plot No.125, Behind Nandanvan Building, L.T. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092. ….Applicant/Plaintiff Versus

1. Romell Housing LLP, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, having office at : Gharkul Housing CHS, B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057.

2. M/s. Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at Le-Palazzo Building, 1st floor, August Kranti Marg, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 036.

3. Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, Having registered address Gharkul Hsg. CHS. B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057. ppn 6 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

8. Krishnarao Khanderao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Vishnu Khanderao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Shankar Khanderao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Dattatray Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Pramod Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

9. Ravindra Khanderao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

10. Rajendra Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

11. Vidya Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, ppn 7 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

12. Kala Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

13. Lata Krishnarao More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

14. Devdas Vishnu More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

15. Jyotsna Vishnu More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

16. Mangla Vishnu More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

17. Nandkishore Shankar More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

18. Nandini Shankar More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. ppn 8 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

19. Hema Shankar More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

20. Ramakrishna Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

24. Predeep Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Sachin Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Subhabgi Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007. Surekha Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

25. Kanchan Dattatray More An Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occ. Not known, Residing at 9/20, J.K. Building, Gamdevi, Mumbai-400 007.

26. Bhalchandra Laxman Thakur 4B, Raghavji Wadi, French Bridge, Gaondevi, Mumbai-400 007. ppn 9 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

27. Pushpalata Laxman Thakur 4B, Raghavji Wadi, French Bridge, Gaondevi, Mumbai-400 007.

28. Aarti P. Sanzgiri 4B, Raghavji Wadi, French Bridge, Gaondevi, Mumbai-400 007.

29. Priyanka Prakash Nagarkar 4B, Raghavji Wadi, French Bridge, Gaondevi, Mumbai-400 007.

30. Namrata Sardeep Talim 4B, Raghavji Wadi, French Bridge, Gaondevi, Mumbai-400 007.

31. Suraj Builders A Registered Partnership Firm, Having registered office address at Gangar House, S. V. Road, Borivali W, Mumbai-400 092.

32. The Sub-Registrar Office, Borivali No.3, District Bandra, Mumbai Suburban.

33. The City Survey Officer & Tehsildar, Tehsildar Building, 2nd/3rd floor, Natakwala Lane, S. V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092.

34. Talathi, Dahisar Village, Aksar Road, Ashok Nagar, Opposite Ajit Palace, CKP Colony, Haridaas Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092. ppn 10 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

35. Court Receiver, Court Receiver Office, Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

37. Sultana Shaikh Flat No.103, Sunrock residency, Near Haidery Chowk, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107. Faizal Shaikh Flat No.103, Sunrock residency, Near Haidery Chowk, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107. ….Defendants WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.31248 OF 2025 IN SUIT NO.502 OF 2023 1A. Asiya Salim Shaikh Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife 1B. Asad Salim Shaikh Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Both residing at Amir House, Plot No.125, Behind Nandanvan Building, L.T. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092.

….Applicant/Plaintiff Versus

1. Romell Housing LLP, Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, having office at : Gharkul Housing CHS, B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057. ppn 11 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

2. M/s. Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at Le-Palazzo Building, 1st floor, August Kranti Marg, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 036.

3. Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, Having registered address Gharkul Hsg. CHS. B-Wing, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057.

4. Mr. Vinod Manilal Mehta Age: 63 years, Residing at 4 Sohini, 1st floor, D.J. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 056.

5. Mr. Manharlal Manilal Mehta Age: 71 years, Residing at 4 Sohini, 1st floor, D.J. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 056.

6. Mrs. Neeta Rajnikant Mehta Residing at 6 Sohini, 2nd floor, D.J. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 056.

7. Mr. Kumar Rajnikant Mehta Residing at 6 Sohini, 2nd floor, D.J. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 056.

8. Mrs. Rupa Shivdas Samani Age: 56 years, Residing at X Block, Sikha Nagar, V. P. Road, Mumbai-400 004. ppn 12 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

9. Mrs. Seema Nayan Masrani Age: 53 years, Residing at 6 Chinar, 3rd floor, Vasant Vihar Complex, Thane W, Mumbai-400 610.

10. Mrs. Mala Deven Tanna Age: 50 years, Residing at B-201, Omvakralund, Opp. Bhakti Mandir, 5 Pakadhi, Thane W, Mumbai-400 610.

11. The Sub-Registrar Office, Borivali No.3, District Bandra, Mumbai Suburban.

12. The City Survey Officer & Tehsildar, Tehsildar Building, 2nd/3rd floor, Natakwala Lane, S. V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092.

13. Talathi, Dahisar Village, Aksar Road, Ashok Nagar, Opposite Ajit Palace, CKP Colony, Haridaas Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092.

14. Court Receiver, Court Receiver Office, Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

15. Sultana Shaikh Flat No.103, Sunrock residency, Near Haidery Chowk, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107. ppn 13 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

16. Faizal Shaikh Residing at Flat No.103, Sunrock residency, Near Haidery Chowk, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107.

17. Mr. Rajesh Virendra Tiwari Residing at 1/2, Ashok Kunj, Tejpal, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 057.

18. Mr. Rakesh Virendra Tiwari Residing at 1/2, Ashok Kunj, Tejpal, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 057.

19. Mr. Mukesh Virendra Tiwari Residing at 1/2, Ashok Kunj, Tejpal, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 057.

20. Mr. Shankar Virendra Residing at 1/2, Ashok Kunj, Tejpal, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 057.

21. Shivdevi Virendra Tiwari Residing at 1/2, Ashok Kunj, Tejpal, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400 057. ….Defendants _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Sawant, Ms. Pallavi Bali, Mr. Laxman Jain and Ms. Garima Mahrotra for the Applicant/Plaintiff. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Drupad Patil & Merlyn Dias for the Defendants. Mr. Rajat Jain i/by M. M. Legal Associates for Defendant No.2. Mr. N.C. Pawar, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay present. _____________________________________________________________ ppn 14 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. RESERVED ON : 16 October 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03 November 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, learned counsel for all the parties state that the facts in all the three interim applications in three different suits are similar and therefore, lead matter be taken as Interim Application No.1767 of 2020 in Suit No.367 of 2023. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of all three interim applications filed in different suits, I have considered said Suit No.367 of 2023 and interim application filed therein as a lead matter and the arguments by all the parties were also advanced on this basis, except reference to some additional documents/pleadings in other suits which parties have relied upon in the course of the hearing.

2. This application is taken out by the plaintiffs seeking following reliefs :- “a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 by themselves, their respective partners, representatives, agents, servants and any third persons claiming through it be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner seeking to enforce or disturb the Plaintiffs/Applicants use, possession and occupation of the said Property; b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, appointed as a Receiver of the said property (pursuant to the Order in Criminal Writ ppn 15 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx Petition No.3214 of 2017) be directed to hand back the possession of the said property to the Plaintiffs/Applicants; c) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer clause (b) above, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, be continued (i) as a Receiver of the said property, and (ii) be further pleased the Plaintiffs/Applicants be appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver with all requisite rights and powers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ; d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order and injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their respective partners, representatives, agents, servants and any third persons claiming through it be from or in any manner acting upon or using or creating any Agreements/documents in favour of any third party based on the documents herein: i) Agreement for Sale-1 dated 30th December, 2006 (Exhibit 'E' to the Plaint), ii) Purportedly Agreement for Sale-2 dated 30th December, 2006, Confirmation Deed dated 9th April, 2008, Rectification Deed dated 13th June, 2008, (as mentioned in Recital O & U(iii) of the first Indenture of Conveyance and Recital N & S(iii) of the second Indenture of Conveyance both dated 31 March, 2017), iii) Two Deed of Conveyances dated 31st March, 2017 with respect to said Property (Exhibit 'F' & 'F-1' to the Plaint), iv) Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 19th May, 2010 (Exhibit 'M' to the Plaint), v) General Power of Attorney dated 19th May, 2010 (Exhibit 'L' to the Plaint), vi) Two Deeds of Assignment of Possession and Possessory Title dated 31st December, 2016 (Exhibit 'J' & 'K' to the Plaint), vii) Purportedly Letter of physical possession dated 11th April, 2017 was addressed by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1 (Exhibit 'I-1' to the Plaint), viii) Deed of Assignment cum Surrender of Possessory Title and Physical Possession dated 10th December, 2016 (Exhibit 'T' to the ppn 16 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx Plaint), ix) Purportedly letter of physical possession dated 10th December, 2016 (Exhibit 'Z' to the Plaint), x) General Power of Attorney dated 10th December, 2016 (Exhibit 'AA' to the Plant), xi) Deed of Surrender cum Possessory cum Tenancy Rights dated 6th June, 2016 (Exhibit 'BB' to the Plaint), xii) Purportedly Letter of physical possession dated 6th June 2016 (Exhibit 'CC' to the Plaint); e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendant No. 20 (Court Receiver) from in any manner disturbing the use, possession and occupation of the said property by the Plaintiffs/Applicants; f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Defendant nos. 17 to 19 by them or through them from making any further entries in the 7/12 extract or any other property records in respect of the said Property; g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to impound the documents listed in prayer clause (d) above; h) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (g) above.” Parties:-

3. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of sole surviving partner of the partnership firm M/s. Shaikh Constructions.

4. Defendant no.1 is a contesting party who had purchased the suit property on 31 March 2017 from defendant No.2. Defendant no.2 had purchased the suit property from defendant nos.4 to 16 on 30 December 2006. Defendant nos.17, 18 and 19 are the officers of the ppn 17 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx State who are concerned with the land records. Defendant no.20 is the Court Receiver. Defendant no.21 is the ex-wife of Mr. K. N. Shaikh who had the alleged power of attorney in her favour and the said alleged power of attorney is also the subject matter of the present suit. Defendant nos.22 and 23 are the parties who had surrendered their possession of the suit property, a fact which is also the subject matter of the present suit. Prelude:-

5. On 18 December 1975, a tenancy agreement was entered into between K. N. Shaikh as a tenant and John Pereira & Ors., landlord, for permanent right of access to K. N. Shaikh and/or his assignees for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- and rent of Rs.300/- per month. K. N. Shaikh was given right of access for the purpose of his quarrying operations. The sole proprietorship of K. N. Shaikh was run in the name of Shaikh Constructions.

6. On 10 December 1979, Articles of Agreement was executed between the then landlord Pereiras and M/s. Amir Constructions for sale of land to M/s. Amir Constructions for Rs.8,90,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is said to have been received. The said agreement acknowledges that the quarry owner and its servants/agents are using their cars and lorries through the said property. ppn 18 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

7. On 22 March 1980, a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) was entered into by M/s. Amir Constructions, Shaikhs and Ravi Builders whereby it was agreed that the property mentioned therein which includes suit property will be developed through a partnership firm by the name of M/s. Shaikh Constructions in which K. N. Shaikh and his three sons were also partners. The agreement further records the right of access of K. N. Shaikh. There was a change in the constitution of the firm formed under JVA on account of dissolution and retirement, whereby after reconstitution, K. N. Shaikh, his three sons and Mohammed Shahid Umar Khan and Syed Mohammed Zaidi continued to be partners of M/s. Shaikh Constructions. Subsequently, Mohammed Shahid Umar Khan and Syed Mohammed Zaidi retired, which resulted in the firm consisting of only K. N. Shaikh and his three sons. Thereafter, from January 1990, the Shaikhs continued to be the partners in the firm. Two children of K. N. Shaikh passed away in 2000 and 2007 respectively and post 2007, the firm consisted of only two partners, K. N. Shaikh and Salim Shaikh. Mr. K. N. Shaikh died on 23 January 2017 and thereafter the firm was survived by sole surviving partner who has filed the present suit.

8. On 30 December 2006, the Pereiras i.e., defendant nos.4 to 16, entered into an Agreement for Sale with Velentine Properties- defendant no.2. In the said agreement, it is specifically stated that K. N. Shaikh was in possession of the said plot, though forcefully. ppn 19 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

9. On 23 January 2017, K. N. Shaikh expired and since the firm consisted of only two partners, it ceased to exist with the sole surviving partner Salim K. Shaikh becoming the sole proprietor.

10. On 31 March 2017, Velentine-defendant no.2, executed two deeds of conveyance in favour of defendant no.1-contesting defendant in the present proceedings. These documents also record the fact of possession of K. N. Shaikh and the representation made by the vendor i.e., defendant no.2-Velentine.

11. From November 2016 to 30 January 2017, defendant no.1- Romell Housing made various applications to the Collector of Stamps for adjudicating stamp duty on the above documents in which defendant no.1 stated that the possession of the land was not with the vendor i.e. Velentine-defendant no.2. The Collector of Stamps passed an order on 31 March 2017 adjudicating the stamp duty after considering the said fact.

12. On 11 April 2017, a letter stating handing over of physical possession by defendant no.2-Velentine to defendant no.1-Romell Housing was exchanged. In the said letter of possession, it is recorded that the area sold is 16,691.60 sq.mtrs. but the possession of only 1,371.34 sq.mtrs. was handed over, which is on the basis of one Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj surrendering his tenancy rights to defendant no.2. ppn 20 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

13. During the intervening period between 21 April 2017 and 22 April 2017 there was an incident of dispossession and repossession of the suit properties and many things revolve around this in the present matter. This also led to the institution of a Criminal Writ Petition by contesting defendant no.1 and orders passed therein which reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereupon a Court Receiver came to be appointed in 2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14. Defendant No.1 also initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to seek possession, the proceedings of which came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court who, on 16 September 2025, directed the Court Receiver to handover possession to defendant no.1 herein. It is this order which instigated the plaintiff to mention the present Interim Application for ad-interim relief on 19 September 2025 and this Court after hearing both parties, passed an ad-interim order appointing a Court Receiver in the Civil Suit and agreed to hear the Interim Application finally on a day-to-day basis. Submissions of the Plaintiff/Applicant:-

15. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti’s submission in brief is that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession from the original owners and, therefore, after the expiry of 12 years, the original owners ceased to be owners and, therefore, could not have conveyed the suit property to the contesting defendants. He further ppn 21 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx submitted that the documents of possession in favour of the defendants and other documents are forged and fabricated and, therefore, till 21 April 2017, the plaintiff was in possession and on dispossession, was put back in possession by the police and continued thereafter till the appointment of a Court Receiver in 2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, sought for interim reliefs as prayed for.

16. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti for the plaintiff brought to my attention the Deed of Surrender-cum-possessory-cum-tenancy Rights dated 6 June 2016, wherein it is stated by defendant no.22-Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj, that he has surrendered the possession of an area admeasuring 1371.34 sq.mtrs. The said Deed of Surrender is at pages 981 and 993. Mr. Sancheti submitted that if that be so, then what was the need to execute a Letter of Physical Possession on 11 April 2017 by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 and why the fact of June 2016 is not recorded in 31 March 2017 document. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti, thereafter brought to my attention the events during the period between 17 April 2017 to 23 April 2017 to contend the attempts made by defendant no.1 to take forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and the steps taken by the plaintiff to recover the possession. He submitted and brought to my attention page nos.1018 and 1019 of the Plaint, to show that it was only on 21 April 2017 that defendant no.1 installed porta cabins on the suit property and along with unknown persons sought to dispossess the plaintiff. ppn 22 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

17. Against the aforesaid dispossession and repossession incident, defendant no.1 filed Criminal Writ Petition bearing No. 3214 of 2017, challenging the action of the Police Officers to recover the possession from defendant no.1. Mr. Sancheti submitted that it was in the course of these proceedings that they came across the documents allegedly executed by K. N. Shaikh in 2016 and assignment deed executed by Sultana (ex-wife of K. N. Shaikh) on the basis of which defendant no.1 was asserting that they had obtained the possession. He submitted that if these documents were genuine, then why the same did not find any reference in the agreement dated 31 March 2017 executed between defendant no.2 and defendant no.1. He submitted that in the said document, it is expressly stated that the possession is with K. N. Shaikh. He, therefore, challenged the genuineness of these documents by which the defendant no.1 is trying to assert possession of the suit property. He further submitted that defendant no.1 has filed a Suit bearing No.242 of 2018 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but there have been no orders passed therein till today.

18. The learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3214 of 2017 dated 14 February 2018, wherein the contention of defendant no.1 is recorded. These contentions being that the defendants had purchased the property after making payment to K. N. Shaikh by executing various conveyance deeds between December 2016 to March 2017. It is also recorded that it is after the execution of the aforesaid sale ppn 23 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx deeds, that defendant no.1 has placed porta cabins, appointed security and erected name boards on the site. Mr. Sancheti submitted that the porta cabins were delivered on 21 April 2017 and there is no material to show how defendant no.1 acquired possession prior to 21 April 2017, since the documents on which they assert possession, are fabricated. He, therefore, submitted that possession prior to the untoward incident was with K. N. Shaikh.

19. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti also emphasised by relying upon paragraph no.43 of the High Court order dated 14 December 2018 on the scope of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and the powers of Competent Civil Court. He submitted that this Court can, by considering the documents on record, come to a finding on the possession without looking into the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

20. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti submitted that there is nothing to show between 31 March 2017 and 21 April 2017 as to how the defendants have obtained the possession. Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gulabchand Daulatram Agarwal Vs. Datta Mandir Sansthan Trust and Ors1 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors Vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors.2, to contend that once the period of adverse possession expires, the person in possession becomes the 1 1986 SCC Online Bom 155 2 (2019) 8 SCC 729 ppn 24 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx owner of the property and the original owner ceases to be the owner. He further stated that although the decision of the Supreme Court on facts was against the appellant therein, the analysis made in paragraph nos.25, 26 and 52 onwards supports his submission that a person in adverse possession gets a perfected title and he cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. He submitted that the defendants have not adopted the due process of law to dispossess the plaintiff. He therefore, submitted that in the present case, based on the documents executed between the defendants, the plaintiff’s possession has been accepted since 1980 and no proceedings have been taken to dispossess the plaintiff till 1992 i.e. for a period of 12 years and therefore, by adverse possession, the plaintiff becomes the owner of the property post 1992 and any transaction subsequent thereto by the original owners i.e. Pereiras, is illegal.

21. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel submitted by referring to the Deed of Surrender of Possessory-cum-tenancy Rights dated 6 June 2016 executed by Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj-defendant no.22 that there is no reference to this document in the agreement executed on 31 March 2017 between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. According to him, if the possession by Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj is already handed over in 2016 then in the absence of any reference being found in the agreement of 31 March 2017, the fact of Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj having handed over possession in 2016 casts a suspicion. He further submitted that on the contrary, in the agreement dated 31 March 2017 there is a specific averment that the entire ppn 25 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx property is not in possession of the seller but, in possession of K. N. Shaikh.

22. Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, made submissions on the Deed of Assignment cum Surrender of Possessory Title and Physical Possession dated 10 December 2016 allegedly executed by K. N. Shaikh in favour of defendant no.1. He submitted that on a reading of various clauses of this document it is clear that the defendant no.1 was well aware that K. N. Shaikh had possessory title and actual physical possession of the property. He further submitted that reference of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (IGPOA) executed on 19 May 2010 and registered on 25 May 2010 bearing Registration No.BDR-6 4665/2010 and referred to in the said document, is a fabricated one because with the same registration number there is a General Power of Attorney (GPOA), and there cannot be two documents registered with the same number. He further submitted that it is incomprehensible that in the document of 10 December 2016, K. N. Shaikh has stated that he had executed IGPOA on 19 May 2010 in favour of his ex-wife which was wrongly revoked and re-confirms the existence of the same.

23. He further stated that the aforesaid document states that the plaintiff has been paid Rs.35 lakhs after deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in two installments, being Rs.15 lakhs on 25 July 2016 and Rs.20 lakhs on 6 December 2016, before the execution of the said document on 10 December 2016. He submits that this is contrary to the documents annexed to the written statement of defendant No.1 ppn 26 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx and the averments made therein. He further states that in the said document the fact of K. N. Shaikh having “adverse possession” is also noted. He further submitted that the consideration of Rs.35 lakhs is only specified in the said document after having stated that K. N. Shaikh has possessory title, which shocks the conscience, and it is nothing but a sham consideration. He submitted that this document is forged and false. He therefore, submitted that the documents on the basis of which defendant no.1 is claiming possession are forged and false.

24. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, thereafter referred to paragraph no.56 of the written statement of defendant nos.1 and 3 wherein defendant no.1 has stated that Rs.14,85,000/- was paid on 25 July 2016 after deducting TDS and Rs.19,80,000/- was paid on 6 December 2016 after deducting TDS. He states that the TDS certificate enclosed with the said written statement refers to the agreement dated 6 December 2015 and 1 January 2017 and not to the agreement dated 10 December 2016. He, therefore, submitted that the payments made and referred to by defendant no.1 are with respect to some other transactions and not with respect to the alleged agreement dated 10 December 2016. He further submitted that in the TDS certificate the dates of payment referred to are different from the dates of payment mentioned in the document dated 10 December

2016. He further referred to the certificate issued by HDFC Bank to defendant no.1, wherein again the dates of payment and figures of payment do not tally with the details of payment mentioned in the ppn 27 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx agreement dated 10 December 2016.

25. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, thereafter relied upon the evidence led in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Referring to the evidence of the advocate who had prepared the document dated 10 December 2016, he submitted that the advocate has stated that K. N. Shaikh was suffering from liver cancer and was admitted in hospital for three or four times due to infection in his lungs. He further submitted that in the cross-examination of the advocate who had prepared the document, the said advocate had stated that the document was read over to K. N. Shaikh since the documents were in English and it was explained to K. N. Shaikh by two persons, Imran and Tripathi. Mr. Sancheti, further submitted that in the document dated 10 December 2016 there is no such statement indicating that K. N. Shaikh was made aware about the contents of the documents. He, therefore, strongly pleaded that the document dated 10 December 2016 is false and fabricated.

26. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, thereafter referred to the evidence of defendant no.1 recorded in the criminal proceedings in which defendant no.1 has admitted that power of attorney given by K. N. Shaikh was not signed in their presence.

27. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, brought to my attention pages 838 and 857 of the plaint to demonstrate that by the same registration number, two documents are registered, one as GPOA and ppn 28 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx another IGPOA. He brought out various distinctions between the two documents to demonstrate that the reference of IGPOA in the document dated 10 December 2016 and 31 December 2016 is a fabricated document because with the same registration number there cannot be two documents, further having different narration and inconsistencies between the two documents. He submitted that there is a grave doubt about the genuineness of the IGPOA which is referred to in the document dated 10 December 2016 on the basis of which the defendant no.1 is claiming that the possession was handed over to them. He further submitted that on 10 December 2016, the plaintiff allegedly only paid Rs.35 lakhs whereas to defendant no.21-Sultana, defendants made payment of more than Rs.70 lakhs and paid stamp duty of about Rs.2 crores on the document with Sultana.

28. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, submits that if by document dated 10 December 2016, defendant no.1 had acquired possessory title of the plaintiff, then it seems incongruous for defendant no.1 to execute another document with defendant no.21- Sultana, ex-wife of the plaintiff for similar rights based on IGPOA. He submits that defendant no.1 is a commercial entity and would not spend Rs.2.72 crores in the execution of the document dated 31 December 2016 with defendant no.21. He submits that this casts a suspicion on the modus operandi adopted by the defendants to cover up fabrication and forgery.

29. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti, thereafter attacked the ppn 29 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx genuineness of the GPOA executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant nos.1 and 3 on 10 December 2016. Firstly, he submitted that the said document was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and the same was not registered. Although on a reading of all the clauses of the said document, what is alleged to be given in favour of defendant nos.1 and 3 were all the rights, title and interest which the plaintiff as an owner could have exercised. He further submitted that the purpose of purchasing the stamp paper was shown as “affidavit” whereas what was executed on the stamp paper was a GPOA. He further submitted that on a reading of all the clauses of the said document, it is clear that defendant no.1 accepted K. N. Shaikh as owner of the suit property. He further submitted that if all the rights of the owners were delegated to defendant nos.1 and 3 by the said document on 10 December 2016, then there was no reason for defendant no.1 to execute another document with defendant no.21- Sultana on 31 December 2016. This could be only to cover up the fraud and fabrication done by the defendants.

30. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti also emphasized the fact that K. N. Shaikh was a seasoned businessman owning thousands of acres of land across the State of Maharashtra and therefore, he knew the value of the suit property. He submitted that such a seasoned person would not give up his possessory title and all rights, by the document dated 10 December 2016, for a mere paltry sum of Rs.35 lakhs. This itself casts a doubt on the genuineness of the document dated 10 December 2016. ppn 30 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx

31. The learned senior counsel, thereafter, made submissions on the document dated 31 December 2016 executed by defendant no.21- Sultana in favour of defendant no.1. He submitted that although this document was lodged for registration on payment of stamp duty of approximately Rs.2 crores, the same was never registered. He further submitted that under this document defendant no.21 was paid Rs.72 lakhs. He submitted that defendant no.1 incurred a total cost of around Rs.2.72 crores in execution of this document but defendant no.1 allegedly paid only Rs.35 lakhs to K. N. Shaikh under the document dated 10 December 2016. This is itself shocking because the owner was paid only Rs.35 lakhs and the alleged power of attorney holder was paid Rs.72 lakhs and stamp duty of about Rs.2 crores is paid on the document with alleged power of attorney holder and no stamp duty (except Rs.100/-) was paid on the main document dated 10 December 2016. The document dated 10 December 2016 is not registered whereas the document dated 31 December 2016 was lodged for registration but was never registered, although on a reading of both these documents, it is clear that the same relate to the transfer of rights, title and interest in the immovable property.

32. Mr. Sancheti, further submitted that if by document dated 10 December 2016 which is prior to 31 March 2017, the possessory title was already acquired then the justification for executing the document on 31 December 2016 with defendant no.21 is highly questionable ppn 31 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx and casts a doubt on the whole modus operandi of contesting defendants. He referred to the documents annexed to the plaint in support of this submission. He further submitted that the document dated 31 December 2016 records that the defendant will depute its own security after the execution of this document. He submitted that the document dated 31 December 2016 refers to an IGPOA bearing Registration No.BDR-6 4665/2010 which is not to be found in the Sub-Registrar's office and this is confirmed by the counsel appearing for the said authority, who has produced a GPOA with the same registration number. The said counsel for the registration authority- defendant no.17 has confirmed that the document titled “Irrevocable General Power of Attorney” is a fabricated one and a fraud has been committed on the authorities.

33. Mr. Sancheti, further submitted that the document of 31 December 2016 admits the possessory title of K. N. Shaikh. He submits that if 10 December 2016 document is genuine, then why on 31 December 2016 the defendants have recognized the possessory title of K. N. Shaikh. He submitted that the document of 31 December 2016 is on the premise that there is an IGPOA in favour of defendant no.21, which has been found to be false and therefore, the Deed of Assignment of Possession and Possessory Title executed on 31 December 2016 too has to be false and tainted with fabrication and fraud.

34. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, tried to connect the dots to ppn 32 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx prove the proximity between the modus operandi leading to forceful dispossession and repossession incidents. He referred to paragraph 37 of the written statement to indicate that the document of 31 December 2016, though executed on 31 December 2016 was registered on 15 April 2017 and the incident of forceful dispossession of the plaintiff and repossession by the plaintiff occurred between 17 April 2017 to 22 April 2017. He submitted that the Court should look into totality of the factors for testing the genuineness of the documents which are under consideration.

35. He further submitted, relying upon the written statement, that the contesting defendants were aware about the partnership firm consisting of K. N. Shaikh. He submitted that the reasons given by the contesting defendants for executing the 31 December 2016 document which is mentioned in paragraph 41 of the written statement is nothing but a cover up since by their own showing under the 10 December 2016 document, the defendants had acquired all rights, title and interest including possessory rights and there was no reason to execute the 31 December 2016 document since there was no claim raised by defendant no.21. He submitted that this also indicates the forgery and the modus operandi adopted by the contesting defendants.

36. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, also handed over a tabular statement showing discrepancies between the GPOA dated 19 May 2010 and the alleged IGPOA dated 19 May 2010 (registered on 25 ppn 33 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx May 2010), to demonstrate that the IGPOA is fraudulent.

37. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti referred to the document in Suit No.158 of 2024, to demonstrate that in the year 2010, three suit properties were agreed to be sold for approximately Rs.7 crores, whereas in 2016, the defendants want the Court to believe that on payment of Rs.35 lakhs, K. N. Shaikh has surrendered all his rights. This itself demonstrates that the document dated 10 December 2016 is not a genuine document. He further relied upon the Agreement for Sale dated 11 September 2010 to submit that the defendants were aware that the plaintiff and his firm were in possession of the suit property. He further submitted that defendant no.1 was trying to create animosity and break the family of K. N. Shaikh since defendant no.1 in this agreement was trying to acquire 90% of the share in the suit property from the children of K. N. Shaikh so that balance 10% can be easily acquired from K. N. Shaikh. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, also relied upon clauses (y) and (cc) of the said agreement in support of this submission.

38. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, referred to Exhibit ‘G’ in Suit No.158 of 2024, being an Agreement for Sale dated 11 September 2010 (which never fructified) between Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. and defendant no.3. He referred to three properties which were described in the said agreement which form part of present three suit properties, and submitted that in this agreement, K. N. Shaikh was proposed to be given approximately Rs.23 crores and ppn 34 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx the consideration for sale of all the three properties was agreed at Rs.71 crores. He submitted that if in 2010, K. N. Shaikh was proposed to be given Rs.23 crores then it is unbelievable that on 10 December 2016, K. N. Shaikh would agree to give up all his rights, title and interest in the suit properties for only Rs.35 lakhs.

39. Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel referred to clauses (h) and (i) of the aforesaid agreement to show that defendant no.1 was aware that K. N. Shaikh was not only in adverse possession of the suit property but also the owner by adverse possession. He further referred to clauses (ee), (ff), (gg) and (kk) to show that defendant no.1 was aware about the partnership firm M/s. Shaikh Constructions and its partners and reconstitution of the said firm and death of two sons of K. N. Shaikh resulting into the sole surviving partner becoming the proprietor of the firm.

40. He further referred to clause (oo) to submit that K. N. Shaikh had a 10% interest in the firm and his three children had the remaining 90% interest in the firm. He further referred to clause (yy) to show the fact of possession with K. N. Shaikh. He submitted that all the warranties, representations etc., made by Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. were confirmed by defendant no.1 in the said agreement, which also contemplates an eventuality where Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. fails to obtain possession of the property from K. N. Shaikh. He therefore, submitted that defendant no.1 had full knowledge of the firm, full knowledge of the true worth and price of ppn 35 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx the suit property and knowledge of the adverse possession by K. N. Shaikh.

41. Mr. Sancheti also referred to internal page 24 clause (ii), page 25 clause (v), page 26 clause (vi) and page 34 paragraph 16 of the aforesaid agreement in support of his submission that defendant no.1 was aware of everything relating to the property insofar as K. N. Shaikh is concerned. He submitted that, therefore, defendant no.1 cannot contend that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, since he had full notice of the possession of K. N. Shaikh, the price and firm.

42. Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, referred to the Court Receiver’s Report dated 26 November 2019 which is annexed to Interim Application (L) No.31248 of 2025, in Suit No.502 of 2023. This report was relied upon to demonstrate that in November 2019, when the Court Receiver had taken inspection of the suit premises, the stone crushing machines of K. N. Shaikh, quarrying activities of K. N. Shaikh, eight to nine boards of K. N. Shaikh and various persons working for K. N. Shaikh were present. This was in support of his contention of backward and forward possession, resulting in continuous possession.

43. He further relied upon the said interim application filed in Suit No.502 of 2023 and submitted that defendant no.1 in February 2017 made an application to the Stamp Authorities for adjudication of value ppn 36 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx of the suit properties in which the contesting defendants had admitted that they do not have physical possession and based on this representation and admissions, discounts were obtained by the defendants in valuation of the property. He further referred to Site Inspection Report of February 2017 wherein the Stamp Authorities had admitted that K. N. Shaikh and others were in adverse possession/possession of the suit property. He, therefore, submitted that in February 2017, the statutory authorities and defendant no.1 have admitted that possession was with K. N. Shaikh, and hence the document dated 10 December 2016 cannot be a genuine document by which it is contended that the possession was handed over to defendant no.1 by K. N. Shaikh or possessory rights could have been sold to defendant no.1. He submitted that there is no positive proof by defendant no.1 of having obtained possession from 31 March 2017 till the forceful possession on 21 April 2017.

44. Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, referred to the written statement filed in Suit No.367 of 2023 by defendant no.1 and more particularly paragraph 21 to submit that the fact of possession by K. N. Shaikh is admitted by the defendants. He further submitted that in the said paragraph, there is nothing mentioned from November 2016 to March 2017 during which the Stamp Authorities had taken inspection of suit properties on application of defendant no.1, wherein it is admitted that the possession was not with them.

45. He further relied upon paragraphs 72 and 75 of the written ppn 37 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx statement and submitted that if the Defendant No.22-Mr. Manpreet Singh Bajaj occupying approximately 1340 sq.mtrs. of land was paid Rs.1,05,00,000/-, then it is unbelievable that K. N. Shaikh, who was in possession of the entire property, would agree for only Rs.35 lakhs to give up all his rights. He further submitted that the security charges itself were running into lakhs and even this fact can be considered to demonstrate that the consideration of Rs.35 lakhs in the document dated 10 December 2016, should shock the conscience of the Court, at least in equity. He further submitted that from a reading of paragraph 75, it is clear that till 17 April 2017, the security agencies of K. N. Shaikh were at the site and consequently, the plaintiff was in possession on 17 April 2017.

46. He further referred to paragraph 7(iii) read with 7(i) of the aforesaid written statement to submit that the defendants have accepted that K. N. Shaikh was unauthorisedly occupying the larger property which is the subject matter of the present suit. He further submitted that in paragraph 7(x), defendant no.1 has contended that they had erected an iron gate only after the death of K. N. Shaikh and after the document dated 31 March 2017, though defendant no.1 was in possession on 10 December 2016 itself. He submitted that if totality of the factors and circumstantial prima facie admissions and evidence are considered, then it is unbelievable that the possession was taken on 10 December 2016. Referring to the said written statement, Mr. Sancheti, learned senior counsel, submitted that in paragraph 15, the ppn 38 1.ia-1767.20(j).docx defendants have accepted that since 1979, K. N. Shaikh was in forceful possession of the suit property, which proves the claim of the plaintiff by adverse possession.

47. Mr. Sancheti, thereafter, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Gounder & Ors. Vs. M. Sengodan & Ors.3 and more particularly paragraphs 16 to 23 to submit that admission is the best evidence and in the facts of the present case, at least at interim stage, this admission should be considered for granting appropriate relief to the plaintiff. He also relied on the said decision to contend that the admission of predecessor is binding on successor. He further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company4 and more particularly, paragraph 21 on forward and backward continuity of possession which is satisfied in the present case by the plaintiff and, therefore, it is his contention that the plaintiff was in possession till 21/22 April 2017. He submitted that till today, there are no eviction proceedings taken out by the contesting defendants against the plaintiff which supports his case, read with all admissions and evidence referred to above, that the plaintiff was in possession on 21/22 April 2017.

48. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sancheti relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private 3 4