Summary: The Bombay High Court turned down the temporary help requests from Asiya Salim Shaikh and others, who claimed they owned a property because they had been using it for a long time. The court found that the plaintiffs didn't provide enough proof to back up their claim.
Who’s Involved?
- Plaintiffs: Asiya Salim Shaikh and Asad Salim Shaikh, representing M/s. Shaikh Constructions.
- Defendants: Romell Housing LLP and others, including Velentine Properties Pvt. Ltd.
What’s the Dispute?
The plaintiffs claimed they owned a property because they had been using it for so long that it should now belong to them. They wanted to stop the defendants from using or selling the property.
Missing Reason to Sue
The court, led by Judge Jitendra Jain, pointed out that the plaintiffs didn't provide a clear timeline or proof of using the property in a way that would make it theirs. The court said that just using the land isn't enough; it must be done openly, continuously, and against the true owner's interests.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
- The plaintiffs said they had been using the land since 1971, but the firm M/s. Shaikh Constructions was only formed in 1980.
- They argued that the original owner, K. N. Shaikh, had an agreement since 1975, allowing him to use the land.
"A person claiming ownership by long-term use has no rights in his favor," the court noted, emphasizing the need for clear and detailed proof of such a claim.
Defendants’ Standpoint
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs didn't have a valid reason to sue, as the firm couldn’t prove its claim of long-term use. They said the plaintiffs’ claims were based on what K. N. Shaikh did as an individual, not the firm.
Concerns About Fake Documents
The court found possibly fake documents, including a suspicious power of attorney, and ordered an investigation to make sure no fraud was involved.
Concerns About Tax on Documents
The court also ordered a review of the tax paid on certain documents, suspecting it might have been too low.
The court dismissed the temporary help requests because the plaintiffs couldn't prove their right to the property by long-term use. The court allowed a two-week period for the parties to take further legal action.
