BEENA'S COMPUTER TYPING AND SHORTHAND INSTITUTE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT P7 (English)

Font Size

Select duration in minutes

Backspace: 0

Timer : 00:00

It appears that the City Civil Court took into consideration the fact that two more buildings had come up on the land and accordingly directed conveyance of only land appurtenant to Building Nos. A to H, J and K in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. Respondent No.1 got aggrieved by conveyance of only limited land in its favour and accordingly filed First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000 in this Court. By the year 2016, the position that existed was that two more buildings had come up on the land in respect of which Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Societies were formed. At this stage the first Respondent Society changed its original stance and agreed that even the societies formed in respect of Building Nos. L and M are also entitled to conveyance of portion of land and that the entire land cannot be conveyed only in favour of Respondent No. 1-Society. Therefore, all the three Societies came together and decided to seek joint conveyance of the entire land in their favour rather than fighting amongst each other. In my view, this was a correct decision taken by the three Societies rather than seeking to divide the lands amongst each other. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies were not parties to S.C. Suit No. 3226 of 1985 and to First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000. Therefore, First Appeal could not have been effectively decided in absence of Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies. It would have been difficult for the Appellate Court to decide land entitlement of Respondent No.1 without hearing Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies. Appreciating this difficulty, Respondent No.1-Society decided to join hands with Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and claimed conveyance of the entire land. After having decided to seek joint conveyance of the entire subject land in favour of the three societies, two options were open to Respondent No.1 Society. The first option was to secure conveyance through the Court. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 could have applied for amendment of the Plaint at appellate stage or could have withdrawn the Appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit seeking conveyance of entire land in favour of the three societies. However, provisions of Section 11 of MOFA were amended and a faster and swifter remedy of deemed conveyance was provided during pendency of the First Appeal. Thus second option became available for the Respondent Societies and accordingly they decided to file application for deemed conveyance.

It appears that the City Civil Court took into consideration the fact that two more buildings had come up on the land and accordingly directed conveyance of only land appurtenant to Building Nos. A to H, J and K in favour of Respondent No.1-Society. Respondent No.1 got aggrieved by conveyance of only limited land in its favour and accordingly filed First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000 in this Court. By the year 2016, the position that existed was that two more buildings had come up on the land in respect of which Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Societies were formed. At this stage the first Respondent Society changed its original stance and agreed that even the societies formed in respect of Building Nos. L and M are also entitled to conveyance of portion of land and that the entire land cannot be conveyed only in favour of Respondent No. 1-Society. Therefore, all the three Societies came together and decided to seek joint conveyance of the entire land in their favour rather than fighting amongst each other. In my view, this was a correct decision taken by the three Societies rather than seeking to divide the lands amongst each other. Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies were not parties to S.C. Suit No. 3226 of 1985 and to First Appeal No. 1091 of 2000. Therefore, First Appeal could not have been effectively decided in absence of Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies. It would have been difficult for the Appellate Court to decide land entitlement of Respondent No.1 without hearing Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Societies. Appreciating this difficulty, Respondent No.1-Society decided to join hands with Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and claimed conveyance of the entire land. After having decided to seek joint conveyance of the entire subject land in favour of the three societies, two options were open to Respondent No.1 Society. The first option was to secure conveyance through the Court. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 could have applied for amendment of the Plaint at appellate stage or could have withdrawn the Appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit seeking conveyance of entire land in favour of the three societies. However, provisions of Section 11 of MOFA were amended and a faster and swifter remedy of deemed conveyance was provided during pendency of the First Appeal. Thus second option became available for the Respondent Societies and accordingly they decided to file application for deemed conveyance.