Facts
The suit was instituted on February 8, 1950, by the heirs of late Mia Mohamed Haji Janmahomed Chotani seeking a declaration, partition, and accounts of his estate
Source reference: para. 1A preliminary decree was passed on March 28, 1950, declaring the shares and referring the matter to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts
Source reference: para. 3The estate included land at Survey No. 208, Yeravada, Pune
Source reference: para. 5Possession was litigated against the Madiwale family and others in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1952, resulting in a 1955 compromise decree granting the Madiwale family a 1/4th share and the estate a 3/4th share
Source reference: paras. 9-12Over decades, various third-party developers (Defendants 2, 16, and 17) acquired interests from different heirs
Source reference: paras. 18-21The present proceedings concern the final partition of "Final Plot No. 79 (Part)," admeasuring 4,271.50 sq. mts., based on a 2025 Architect’s plan
Source reference: paras. 15, 23Issues
Whether the proposed partition plan for Final Plot No. 79 (Part), specifically the inclusion of a 12-meter internal road, is legally valid and technically necessary
Source reference: para. 24Whether the competing claims of various developers over specific sub-plots can be resolved within the present partition suit
Source reference: paras. 27(v), (viii)Law Applied
The Court applied the partition principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order XL Rule 1(d) regarding Receiver powers
Source reference: para. 2It strictly adhered to the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State (UDCPR), specifically Regulation 3.3.2 (sub-clause “C”) regarding road widths in land sub-divisions and Regulation 3.3.3 regarding the measurement of internal roads
Source reference: para. 25The Court also acknowledged the principle of lis pendens and the necessity of independent adjudication for competing title claims under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Source reference: para. 27(viii)Reasoning
The Court evaluated the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 regarding the 12-meter road width.
Source reference: para. 24Relying on the Architect’s expert opinion dated February 10, 2026, the Court found that the UDCPR mandatorily requires a 12-meter road for the specific layout and length of the internal road in this sub-division
Source reference: paras. 24-25The Court noted that earlier 1984 plans already contemplated this extension for access to adjacent Plot No. 80
Source reference: para. 25Furthermore, the Court reasoned that there was no loss of development potential because the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the road area remains available for use on the remaining plot
Source reference: para. 25Regarding competing claims between Defendants 16 and 17, the Court determined these required independent adjudication in a competent civil court rather than summary disposal in the 1950 partition suit
Source reference: para. 27(viii)Holding
The Court approved the partition plan dated August 21, 2025, and directed the Commissioner for Taking Accounts to effect partition by metes and bounds
The Court ordered: (a) demarcation via the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR)
Source reference: para. 27(ii)(b) appointment of the Registrar, District Court, Pune, as Receiver for Sub-Plot 17 pending a separate suit
Source reference: para. 27(v)and (c) execution of conveyance for Sub-Plot 19 in favor of Defendant No. 17
Source reference: para. 27(vi)A status quo was ordered for Sub-Plots 18, 20-24 until June 15, 2026, to allow parties to initiate independent litigation
Source reference: para. 27(ix)Suit No. 208 of 1950 was disposed of, and the Court Receiver and Official Assignee were discharged
Source reference: paras. 27(x), (xii)Original Court PDF
Ebrahim ChotaniVs.The Official Assignee [Suit No. 208 of 1950 with Notice of Motion No. 909 of 2019; 2026:BHC-OS:6335]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in