Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Irene P. Furtado And Ors. vs District Deputy Registrar, ... on 5 August, 2025

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

                                                                                          904.WP.13946.2016.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                        WRIT PETITION NO.13946 OF 2016

              Irene P. Furtado and Ors.                          .. Petitioners
                          Versus
              District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies
              (2) and Ors.                                       .. Respondents
                                            ....................
               Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w. Jos Sanghavi, Mr. Vikas Poojary, Advocates
                 i/by PDS Legal for Petitioners.
               Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. Jayant Puranik, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                          ...................

                                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                                         DATE          : AUGUST 05, 2025
              P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Sarda, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Puranik, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. Mr. Sarda draws my attention to the impugned decision dated 08.06.2016 of the Competent Authority according Deemed Conveyance to the Society in respect of entire plot of land.

3. His basic contention stems from the right of Petitioners' predecessors having been fructified by virtue of the decision of the Civil Court in its judgement dated 23.01.2013 in S.C. Suit No.2887 of 2011 which was filed by the Society and came to be dismissed. The said judgement is appended at page No.106 of the Petition. Perusal of 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:41:15 :::

904.WP.13946.2016.doc the said judgement reveals that construction on subject plot is of two buildings, namely Building 'A' and Building 'B'. Bulding 'B' houses members of the original owners' family. They are not members of the Society.

4. Though Mr. Sarda in his usual fairness informs the Court that Occupants of Building 'B' have not been admitted as Members of Society as yet and they are managing on their own, however he would persuade the Court to consider that an open space behind Building 'B' would come to the exclusive ownership of the owners of the plot even as per the Development Agreement. He would draw my attention to Development Agreement which is appended in the Petition.

5. Mr. Puranik enters appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2

- Society. Respondent No.2 - Society is directed to file its Affidavit-in- Reply within a period of two weeks from today and explain the factual status.

6. Stand over to 19th August, 2025.

H. H. SAWANT                                              [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                           Digitally signed
                           by HARSHADA
               HARSHADA HANUMANT
               HANUMANT SAWANT
               SAWANT   Date:
                           2025.08.05
                           16:58:05 +0530




                                                                                          2 of 2


                    ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2025                 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2025 21:41:15 :::