Suits claiming competing ownership rights over the same property must be heard together to avoid conflicting decrees.

The Applicants (Meteor Estates) filed Suit No. 642 of 2015 (2015 Suit) seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of a specific plot in Juhu, Mumbai, claiming title via a 1985 sale deed

Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (Venus Habitat) had previously filed Suit No. 2519 of 2008 (2008 Suit) seeking similar declarations of ownership and possession for the same property, alleging the defendants therein were impersonators

The 2015 Suit impleaded Venus Habitat, but the Applicants were not parties to the 2008 Suit

Despite being served with the 2015 Suit in April 2015, Venus Habitat did not implead the Applicants in their 2008 Suit, which is now ripe for final hearing

The Applicants moved this application for consolidation of the two suits after a delay of nearly 10 years

The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows the court to adopt procedures to attain justice and ensure consistency, provided there is no express prohibition

It considered the "mirror image" test for consolidation, noting that while not a straightjacket formula, it requires substantial commonality in transactions and issues

The court also relied on the principle that a declaration of ownership constitutes a right in rem, enforceable against the world, as affirmed in Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.

The Court observed that while the "mirror test" for consolidation was not fully met due to different causes of action (impersonation in the 2008 Suit vs. collusion in the 2015 Suit), both suits involve the same property and common predecessors (Allams)

The Judge criticized the Applicants for an unexplained 10-year delay and Venus Habitat for failing to inform the court of the 2015 Suit despite being served

However, since both plaintiffs seek declarations of ownership—which are rights in rem—allowing the suits to proceed separately creates a risk of contradictory decrees where two different entities could be declared owners of the same land

To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and satisfy equity, the Court determined that consolidation was inappropriate because the 2008 Suit is at the final stage while the 2015 Suit has not begun evidence; however, an expedited "hearing together" would resolve the impasse

The Court directed that the 2015 Suit's procedural stages (framing issues, documents, and evidence) be expedited and completed by December 31, 2026

The application was disposed of with the mandate that the suits be heard together only after the 2015 Suit reaches the same procedural stage as the 2008 Suit