In a recent decision from the Bombay High Court, Judge Sandeep V. Marne looked into a tricky situation involving a fight over property ownership between Maharukh Mediomah Patel and Ruksana Barodkar. This case shows the difficulties of property rights and the problems that come up when someone taking care of a property is accused of taking things too far.
The fight is about Flat No. 1 at Abbasi Building, Mumbai. At first, Maharukh's family had three rooms and a bathroom, while Ruksana and her husband had the other two rooms. This setup changed when Maharukh's father went to the hospital in August 2013. Maharukh said that during this time, Ruksana wrongfully took over the whole flat.
On September 21, 2019, the City Civil Court agreed that Maharukh was wrongfully kicked out but dismissed her case because she didn't describe the property well enough. This led to both sides appealing, with Maharukh arguing against the dismissal and Ruksana arguing against the finding of wrongful takeover.
Maharukh's Claim: She said the property was described well enough and that the City Civil Court was wrong to dismiss her case for technical reasons.
Ruksana's Defense: She said she had rental rights over the whole flat, claiming that Maharukh’s father gave up his rights when he went to the hospital.
Judge Marne found Ruksana's claim that the father gave up his rights because of hospitalization "strange" and not backed by any proof. The court said you can't lose your property just because you're in the hospital and pointed out that Ruksana's actions in taking over the property were wrong.
"A person who is in possession of immovable property cannot lose the same merely on account of his/her admission in the hospital for treatment."
The High Court overturned the City Civil Court's dismissal, giving Maharukh back the property and ordering Ruksana to pay her Rs. 50,000. The court stressed that technical details shouldn't get in the way of justice, especially when it's clear someone was wrongfully kicked out of their property.
The High Court decided in favor of Maharukh, giving her back the property and ordering Ruksana to pay her compensation. This case highlights the importance of not letting technical details prevent justice and the responsibilities of caretakers to respect property rights.
