Quick Summary: In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court dealt with a tricky property issue where a caretaker took over a property without permission. The court supported Maharukh Patel, who said she was wrongly kicked out of her property by Rukhsana Barodawala. The court ordered that the property be returned to Patel.
The case is about a property at Flat No.1, Abbasi Building, Mumbai. Originally, Maharukh Patel's parents had three rooms and a bathroom. But when her dad was in the hospital in 2013, Rukhsana Barodawala supposedly took over the whole flat, using an old caretaker agreement from 1985 as her reason.
"Plaintiff’s father was hospitalized... Defendant No.1-Rukhsana took over possession of the suit premises by removing the wooden passage door."
Judge Sandeep V. Marne found that Rukhsana took over the property from Patel's family without any right. Even though Rukhsana admitted that Patel's dad lived in part of the flat, she said he gave it up when he went to the hospital. The court disagreed, saying that going to the hospital doesn't mean you give up your property.
"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."
At first, the City Civil Court turned down Patel's case, saying the property description wasn't clear enough. But the High Court disagreed, saying the drawings given were good enough to identify the property.
"The Trial Court has seriously erred in dismissing the Suit by adopting a hyper-technical approach of insufficient description of the suit property."
The High Court changed the lower court's decision, telling Rukhsana to give the property back to Patel. The court also fined Rukhsana Rs. 50,000 for trying to handle things on her own.
The High Court's decision makes sure that Maharukh Patel gets her property back and emphasizes that people can't just take over someone else's property because of a technicality. The court also made it clear that justice is more important than getting caught up in small details.
This ruling is a reminder that rightful ownership cannot be taken away by sneaky actions, and it reinforces the legal protections for property owners.
