After a 35 year  long legal battle from consumer forum to High Court for seeking possession of a shop booked in premier Dhantoli locality, an elderly lady has finally won the battle when High Court directed the builder to hand-over possession within next four weeks.
A division bench consisting of Justice Ravi Deshpande and Justice Amit Borkar while dismissing two letter patent appeals, ordered to hand over possession of block no 111 on the first floor of Satyam Apartment at Wardha Road to Dr Shobha Kaore.
Kaore booked the shop with an agreement dated January 12, 1985 and she did not have the possession of the shop.
The respondent-lady had paid Rs 85,000 out of agreed sum of Rs 95,000 for the shop at Satyam Apartment and claimed that in spite of the said payment, neither Sale Deed was executed in respect of property in disputen nor the possession was handed over.
Therefore, she moved the Consumer Forum in 1993 seeking relief of possession and execution of the Sale Deed. The ConsumerForumonApril3, 1995 allowed the complaint and directed her to payout standing amount of Rs 10,000 and MSEB charges within one month.
The developer sought dismissal of execution proceedings citing failure to deposit amount as per Consumer Court order. The Executing Court allowed the application and held that the decree-holder was not entitled to execute the decree.
The original purchaser then moved the High Court challenging the order of dismissal of execution proceedings. Meanwhile, after dismissal of execution proceedings, the builder in 1997 sold the shop to one Trilokchand Birdichand Bhandari.
The single judge of High Court on October 16, 2009 directed Swastik Builders and its director to deliver possession of the shop block within eight weeks with compensatory costs of Rs 50,000 to the decree holder within eight weeks. Builder will have to pay Rs 1000 per day damages in case of failure to deliver possession to lady-purchaser.
The developer and subsequent purchaser filed LPAs challenging the order of the single judge. Finally, bringing an end to this prolonged litigation, the High Court noted that purchaser had already paid substantial portion of original cost and was deprived of possession for 35 years. The High Court rejected claim of subsequent purchaser that he was a bonafide purchaser and pointed out that the purchaser has purchased the shop block after passing of the decree and, therefore, such person will not get any independent right, much less protection of bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Adv Anand Parchure (Builder), Adv Bhanudas Kulkarni (subsequent purchaser), Adv Shreerang Bhandakar (original purchaser) appeared in the matter.