Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments


1    (1954)LVI BLR 1080


Ashish/Choulwar





                                   12/77                     Orig.Sum.15-19.doc

Mr. Devitre would submit that after lapse of about 60 years of the date of registered conveyance, the defendant nos.1 to 3 for the first time are attempting an interpretation of some terms of the Common Plot Conveyance to indicate that the common plots did not vest in the Society's, as owner but they are only the 'tenants', as the Common Plots Conveyance has used the terminology "tenants in common", and therefore, on completion of the JVPD scheme, the common plots vested in the MCGM and in the wake of this situation, it was not open for the Bombay Housing Board to convey or transfer them to the 14 Co-owner Societies. Therefore, according to Mr. Devitre, it has become necessary to ascertain whether, on a true and correct construction of the Common Plots Conveyance read with the Individual Plot Conveyances, whether the common plots are conveyed absolutely to the Co-owner Societies as Co- owners and whether MHADA (erstwhile Bombay Housing Board) has any right, title or interest in the common plots, after execution of the registered Common Plots Conveyance.

Hence, the argument of Mr.Lad cannot be accepted, as even MHADA, after its incorporation, never asserted its right over the amenity and utility plots.





Ashish/Choulwar





                                        76/77                    Orig.Sum.15-19.doc

75. Another point which ought to have focused upon is the holding of the open plots (Amenities and Utilities as "Tenants in Common"), but since Mr. Sen has conceded to the legal position that the use of phraseology "Tenants in Common" in the Conveyance of 1960 confers ownership, Mr. Devitre has not advanced his argument on the said aspect of the matter and therefore, he has restricted his reliefs in Originating Summons to Clauses (a) and (c) only.