Thane, Jan 10: The Thane Principal District Court has dismissed an appeal filed by businessman Ravindra Mahadev Patil, who claimed exclusive ownership and possession over a 10,000 sq ft open space in Panchpakhadi, holding that the area was meant for common recreational use and not for the plaintiff alone.
Appeal rejected, trial court order upheld
Principal District Judge S. B. Agrawal, while rejecting the Regular Civil Appeal on January 8, upheld the June 20, 2024 judgment of the 7th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, which had only partially allowed Patil’s original suit by directing the housing society to open a closed access gate but denied his claim of exclusive rights over the open land.
Claim based on 1986 agreement
Patil had approached the civil court claiming ownership and possession of the open space carved out of Final Plot No. 397 at Panchpakhadi, Thane, relying on an agreement executed in April 1986.
He sought declarations and permanent injunctions restraining two cooperative housing societies — Har Har Mahadev CHS and Shiv Parvati CHS — from using the land for parking, ingress or egress.
Origin of the dispute
The dispute traces its origin to a common layout sanctioned in April 1986 for the entire plot, comprising row houses occupied by Patil and his siblings, along with two residential buildings — Building A and Building B — constructed for the respondent societies. The open space in question was shown as an amenity area in the sanctioned plan.
Court cites clause on recreational use
While examining the appeal, the district court focused on Clause 9A of the 1986 agreement, which required the developer to keep approximately 10,000 sq ft as open space for recreation.
The court observed that the clause did not confer exclusive ownership or possession upon Patil but clearly indicated that the area was meant for recreational use by occupants of the entire plot.
Admissions weaken plaintiff’s case
The court also noted that the plaintiff had admitted during cross-examination that the plot was never subdivided and that a single common gate existed for all occupants since completion of development in 1993. This, the court said, further weakened the claim of exclusive possession.
Also Watch:
Appeal dismissed with costs
Holding that the trial court’s findings were correct and did not warrant interference, the district judge concluded that the suit appeared to have been filed with an ulterior motive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the trial court’s decree was affirmed.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
