Bombay High Court
Kamlesh Bherumal Jain And Ors vs Purshottam Vishandas Raheja And Ors on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:46694
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 396/2025
KAMLESH BHERUMAL JAIN & ORS ..APPLICANTS
VS
PURSHOTTAM VISHANDAS RAHEJA & ORS ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Ms. Sakina Electricwala i/b. Avyaan Legal for applicants.
Mr. Rohan Sawant a/w. Mr. Chaintanyaa Bhandarkar i/b. Numen Law
Offices for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Soniya Putta a/w. Ms. Souparnika, Ms. Priyanka Singh i/b. M/s,
Solomon & Co. for respondent nos. 3 and 5.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 3 NOVEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 4 NOVEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a transfer application filed under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, wherein the applicants are seeking transfer of ten
suits filed by them initially in the Bombay High Court which were
subsequently transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court, pursuant to
the amendment to the Bombay City Civil Court's Act, as the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court was enhanced from Fifty
Thousand to One Crore. The present application seeks re-transfer of
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
ten suits from the Bombay City Civil Court back to the Bombay High
Court, and to be heard along with Suit No. 2509 of 2011, which is
pending before the Bombay High Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for all the parties and I have gone
through the records.
3. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of two brothers,
who have disputes amongst themselves. The said two brothers's
group are hereinafter referred to as "Purshottam Group" and
"Shrichand Group". Both the groups have claimed their rights on a
plot of land in Byculla region of Mumbai. On the said plot of land a
building named "Sidhgiri" is constructed.
4. As dispute arose between two brothers, "Shrichand Group"
filed a suit viz. Suit No.1266 of 2009 against "Purshottam Group"
before the Bombay High Court. In the said suit, Notice of Motion
bearing No.1787 of 2009 was preferred, which was disposed of by
the Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9 September 2009. In
the said order direction was passed that it would be open to both the
sides to negotiate with prospective buyers of the remaining 27 flats of
the building "Sidhgiri", with intimation to them. The said order dated
9 September 2009 was challenged before the Division Bench of this
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
Court. There was a stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court
to the said order dated 9 September 2009. The order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme
Court and by its order dated 30 April 2010, the Supreme Court set
aside the order passed by the Division Bench and confirmed the order
dated 9 September 2009 passed by the Single Judge of this Court.
5. It is the applicants' case that thereafter, on 17 August 2010, the
applicants have purchased their respective flats in the building
'Sidhgiri' from "Shrichand Group" by way of registered Agreement for
Sale.
6. The "Purshottam Group" thereafter, filed Suit No.2509 of 2011
against the "Shrichand Group". The present applicants are also added
as party defendants in the said suit. The said suit claims that the
family arrangements are valid and binding and subsisting between
the two groups. It is also further claimed that the agreements
executed by the "Shrichand Group" in favour of the present
applicants are all illegal, null and void and/or not binding on the
"Purshottam Group".
7. Notice of Motion No.2281 of 2011 was preferred in 2009 suit
by the present applicants - flat purchasers. The said Notice of Motion
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
was disposed of by an order dated 20 October 2012 by the Single
Judge of this Court along with Notice of Motions of the plaintiffs and
defendants. Paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 of the said Order dated 20
October 2012 read as under:-
29. The flat purchasers have applied for various reliefs without filing
their own separate suit for specific performance of the agreements of flat
purchase entered into by them. These reliefs cannot be granted by the
Court in the suit between two brothers as principal and agent. However,
orders and directions in compliance of the order dated 9th September, 2009
herein including allowing as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to continue and
complete the construction and obtain CC & OC would itself enure for the
benefit of the flat purchasers.
30. The Notice of Motion of the flat purchasers is allowed to be
withdrawn with liberty to take out proceedings for such reliefs in their
own separate suit.
7.1 Therefore, the said Order dated 20 October 2012 permitted the
present applicants to file their separate suits for specific performance
if they intended to do so.
8. Notice of Motion No. 93 of 2017 was preferred in 2011 suit.
While disposing of the said Notice of Motion vide its order dated 15
January 2018 by the Single Judge of this Court, reiterating the
directions given by this Court in its order dated 20 October 2012
passed in 2009 suit, set up a timeline of 10 weeks to the present
applicants to file their suits of specific performance if they desired so.
Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 15 January 2018 read
as under:-
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
6. Prayers (a) and (b) in Notice of Motion No.93 of 2017 are in
respect of Respondent-flat purchasers. Some of them are represented by
Mr Sawant in Court today. The others are personally present during the
hearing. None of these flat purchasers have filed any suit of their own in
respect of flat purchase agreements or their acquisition of title to their
respective flats. I may only note that there are previous orders including
one of Mrs Justice Dalvi of 20th October 2012 that not only allowed some
of these flat purchasers to withdraw the Notice of Motion then taken out
by them in the 2009 suit filed by Shrichand Raheja Group but also
reserved liberty to file proceedings of their own.
7. It will be open, therefore, to the flat purchasers, the Respondents to
the Notice of Motion No. 93 of 2017, to file an appropriate civil
proceedings and initiate such proceedings or steps for interim protection
as they are advised, but this must be done within a period of ten weeks
from today. This is necessarily subject to all rights and contentions
including as to limitation being kept open. The time limit is only provided
with this view: that if the flat purchasers do not take steps on their own
then they will not be entitled to seek protective interim relief in a suit filed
by either the Shrichand Raheja Group or Purshottam Raheja Group. Since
the flat purchasers are already arrayed as Defendants to Suit No. 2509 of
2011 filed by the Purshottam Raheja Group, these flat-purchaser-
Defendants will, of course, and necessarily, have the right to file a counter-
claim as well, if so advised.
8. Notice of Motion No. 1091 of 2015 filed by Purshottam Raheja
Group is adjourned for a period of 12 weeks from today since that notice
of motion inter alia seeks ejectment or taking over o possession from some
of these very flat purchasers - Respondents.
9. As per the directions given by this Court in the order dated 15
January 2018, the present applicants have preferred suit for specific
performance which were initially filed before this Court. However,
due to the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay
City Civil Court, these ten suits filed by the present applicants have
been now transferred from the Original Side of this Court to the
Bombay City Civil Court.
10. Hence, the present applicants have filed this application under
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the
proceedings of these ten suits from the Bombay City Civil Court back
to the Bombay High Court and to be heard along with 2011 suit.
11. There is no dispute that ten suits which have been transferred
to the Bombay City Civil Court were initially filed before this Hon'ble
Court and were heard together along with 2011 suit. However, only
due to the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay
City Civil Court, these ten suits have been transferred to the Bombay
City Civil Court.
12. Issues have already been framed in 2011 suit by order dated 19
March 2024. Even thereafter, ten transferred suits to the City Civil
were heard along with 2011 suit. Said Issues read as under:-
(1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that a family arrangement was arrived
at between Plaintiff No.1, late Shrichand Vishandas Raheja, late Vishandas
Raheja and late Ramkishan Rabeja on 30 January 1992?
(2) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that a family arrangement was arrived at
between Plaintiff No.1, late Shrichand Vishandas Raheja and late
Ramkishan Raheja on 20th August 1994 ?
(3) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the family arrangements dated 30
January 1992 and the further family arrangement of 1994 ("family
arrangements") are valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendant Nos.1
to 5?
(4) Whether the Plaintiff No.1 and/or his nominees are entitled to (i) the
Byculla Property and (ii) the Sukh Sagar Property?
(5) Whether the Power of Attorneys dated (i) 8th August 2000; (ii) 21
September 2025; and (iii) 24 24 October 2008 are irrevocable, coupled
with interest and/or executed for consideration and hence valid, subsisting
and binding on Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 ?
(6) Whether the Agreements made between late Shrichand Raheja and/or
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant Nos.7 to 27 (being Exhibits
KK-1 to KK-15 to the Plaint) are legal, valid and binding on the Plaintiffs?
(7) Whether Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly / severally liable to pay to
the Plaintiffs Rs.3,78,53,648/- (as per the Particulars of Claim at Exhibits
"X" to the Plaint) alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum
from the respective dates till the date of payment and/or realization
thereof as claimed ?
(8) Whether Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly / severally liable to pay to
the Plaintiffs Rs.17,77,16,876/- (as per the Particulars of Claim at Exhibit
"U-1" to the Plaint) alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per
annum till the date of payment and/or realization thereof as claimed?
(9) Whether Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are jointly severally liable to pay to the
Plaintiffs Rs 9,92,968/- along with further interest on the principal
amount of Rs 6,91,270/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
suit till actual payment and/or realization thereof (as per Particulars of
Claim being Exhibit "AA" to the Plaint) as claimed?
(10) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to an order/direction against
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 of executing all requisite documents, instruments,
agreements, conveyances and/or forms as may be necessary, for
transferring, conveying and assuring the exclusive ownership of Byculla
Property along with all the buildings and/or structures standing thereon
(more particularly described at Exhibit "B" to the Plaint) and the Sukh
Sagar Property to the Plaintiffs?
(11) Whether the present Suit is barred by the provisions of the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and hence not tenable?
(12) Whether the present Suit is barred by limitation?
(13) Whether the present Suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes
of action?
(14) Whether the present Suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 91,
92, 94 and 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and hence cannot be granted?
(15) Whether Defendant Nos 7 to 27 are bonafide purchasers for value
without notice?
(16) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctive reliefs/injunction
orders as prayed for?
(17) What Order and what Costs?
(Emphasis supplied)
12.1 Ten suits which have been filed by the present applicants which
are identical in nature. The main prayers in the said suits read as
under :-
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
a. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and declare that the Articles of
Agreement dated 17th August, 2010 is valid, binding and subsisting upon
the Defendants;
b. The Defendants be directed to specifically perform the Articles of
Agreement dated 17th August, 2010 and in furtherance thereof hand over
possession of the suit flat being 501 and more particularly described
Exhibit A of the Plaint and be further directed to accept c balance
consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the Plaintiffs and to do all acts,
deeds and things and to execute and register all documents and writings
as may be necessary and put the Plaintiffs in possession of the suit flat at
Exhibit A hereto;
c. That without prejudice to right to claim possession of the suit flat, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare by its order and decree that Plaintiffs
are entitled to recover a debt and liquidated demand and compensation
towards the rent paid by the Plaintiff in respect of temporary
accommodation hired and also the interest paid on the borrowed amount
for the purchase of the suit flat, including causing mental agony, torture,
tension etc. due to indefinitely delayed possession and injury caused;
d. That, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendants, their agents, servants,
nominees or any persons claiming under/through them be permanently
restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any
manner creating any third party rights and/or part with possession and/or
inducting any third party, and/or creating encumbrance in respect of the
suit flat as described in Exhibit A to the Plaint;
e. That, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court,
Bombay under Order LIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Court
Receiver to take possession of the suit flat and further appoint the
Plaintiffs as agents of the Ed. Court Receiver without royalty;
f. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) and (e) above;
g. For cost of the suit;
h. Any other order be passed to as to meet the ends of justice;
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Hence, these ten suits are mainly filed for specific performance
of the Article of agreement dated 17 August 2010. Suit filed by the
"Purshottam Group" also deal with the said agreements as not been
valid and binding on them. So also, there is no dispute that ten suits
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
which have now been transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court
have been filed only after this Court had passed its Order on 20
October 2012 and on 15 January 2018.
13.1 In 2011 suit filed by "Purshottam Group", the present
applicants are party defendants. Hence, in my view, they can file
counter-claim in that suit. Instead of filing counter-claim they have
filed independent separate ten suits, claiming specific performance of
the sale agreement.
14. Considering the fact that both the suits mainly involved around
the sale agreements which were entered into between the "Shrichand
Group" and the present applicants. Those agreements were entered
into 17 August 2010 after the learned Single Judge had passed an
order in the year 2010 which were confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, according to me, the parties are same, so also, the issues
involved are the same. There will be duplication of recording of
evidence if separate trials are held and there is a likelihood of
conflicting judgments being passed. Therefore, to avoid the same, it
would be in the interest of justice that the said ten suits be heard
along with 2011 suit.
15. Section 24 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure gives general
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
power to the High Court to transfer proceedings at any stage.
Therefore, the argument on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that
the suit filed by the applicants is still at preliminary stage and the suit
filed by them has reached the level of the affidavit of evidence being
filed, and the matter is kept for marking of documents, will not hold
much ground.
16. Issue No.6 in 2011 suit is with regard to the agreement of sale
entered into between the present applicants with "Shrichand Group".
The said "Shrichand Group" is not opposing the present transfer
proceedings. The present applicants' main prayer in their 2018 suits
is that of "specific performance of agreement entered into by them
with 'Shrichand Group' ". Therefore, the issues in both the suits are
likely to be overlapped. Though affidavit of evidence is filed in 2011
suit, the cross-examination has not begun as of date.
17. "Purshottam Group" have themselves made present applicants
as party defendants in their 2011 suit. Therefore, even "Purshottam
Group" who is opposing the transfer of the suits filed by the
applicants from the Bombay City Civil Court to Bombay High Court
are of the view that the present applicants should be heard and are
necessary parties in the issues to be decided in their suit of 2011.
Diksha Rane mca 396-25.doc
Therefore, according to me, in the interest of justice to save judicial
time, the suits filed by the applicants which have been recently
transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court needs to be re-transferred
to this Court and to be heard along with 2011 suit.
18. It should also be considered that the respondent "Shrichand
Group" is not opposing to the proposition of re-transfer of the
applicants suits back to this Court.
19. Hence, the Misc. Civil Application stands allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/11/2025 14:46:41
