In a landmark ruling that highlights the growing menace of property fraud through impersonation in Navi Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has swiftly cancelled two fraudulent documents that transferred ownership of an elderly man’s flat to an unwitting buyer. The judgment, delivered by Justice N. J. Jamadar on February 26, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 17668 of 2024, provides quick relief to victims of such scams and underscores the importance of vigilance in real estate transactions.
The case revolves around 82-year-old Mohan Gangaram Narang, the original allottee of flat No. A-1/62/2 in the A-1 Type Apartment Owners Association, Sector 21, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. Allotted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (CIDCO), Mr. Narang had been in lawful possession for years.
In 2016, fraudsters allegedly prepared forged documents using someone impersonating Mr. Narang. A “Deed of Apartment” dated October 10, 2016, and a “Conveyance Deed” dated November 30, 2016, were executed and registered. These papers transferred the flat to Rajaram Ramdeo Jaiswar (Defendant No. 4 in the suit). The Apartment Owners’ Society (Defendant No. 3) issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) based on fake identity proofs, and CIDCO initially permitted the transfer.
The fraud came to light later. CIDCO revoked its NOC and permission via a letter dated February 14, 2017, noting that an impersonator had forged ID documents and deceived authorities. The society also withdrew its NOC on December 19, 2016. An FIR (No. 114 of 2017) was registered against the suspects.
Since the documents were registered, CIDCO advised Mr. Narang that only a civil court could cancel them. He filed a suit (RCS No. 240 of 2023) in the Thane Civil Court seeking declarations that the 2016 deeds were false, fabricated, null and void, not binding on him, and should be cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He also sought an injunction.
To expedite relief, Mr. Narang applied for a “judgment on admission” under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He pointed to clear admissions in Mr. Jaiswar’s Written Statement, where the defendant stated he had learned (after inquiries with CIDCO officials) that:
- The seller was not the real owner.
- Mr. Narang is the real owner.
- The seller was an impersonator of Mr. Mohan Gangaram Narang.
- He had been cheated/deceived by the impersonator and another party (Defendant No. 5, Vivek Rajesh Agarwal).
Mr. Jaiswar described himself as a victim who acted in good faith, lost his retirement savings, and suffered huge financial losses.
The Thane Civil Judge rejected the application, holding the admissions were not clear, unambiguous, or unconditional, were based on hearsay, and allegations of forgery against Mr. Jaiswar required a full trial.
Mr. Narang challenged this in the Bombay High Court. Justice Jamadar, after detailed analysis, disagreed with the lower court. He held that Mr. Jaiswar’s repeated assertions constituted clear, implied, and constructive admissions: there was no real transaction between Mr. Narang and Mr. Jaiswar, no consideration was paid to the real owner, and the deeds were invalid.
The court noted additional red flags, such as the Conveyance Deed falsely claiming payment of ₹10 lakhs in 1998 (18 years before execution), CIDCO and society’s cancellations, and the pending FIR. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Uttam Singh Duggal, Karam Kapahi, Himani Alloys, etc.), the judge emphasized that Order XII Rule 6 allows speedy judgment on clear admissions to avoid unnecessary trials—especially for an elderly litigant.
The High Court partly allowed the petition, quashed the Thane order, and passed a decree on admission:
- Declared both 2016 deeds void and not binding on Mr. Narang.
- Ordered their cancellation and delivery up.
- Directed the trial court to forward the decree to the Registrar of Assurances for notation.
- Clarified the ruling does not influence any criminal proceedings.
The court observed no need for trial on the core issue of document validity, though forgery allegations against parties can proceed separately.
This ruling serves as a stark reminder for homebuyers: always verify seller identity through multiple sources, insist on original documents, and be wary of suspiciously quick or cheap deals. For genuine owners facing impersonation fraud, courts can provide fast civil remedies via admissions in pleadings, even while criminal probes continue.
The judgment reinforces that registered documents tainted by proven fraud or impersonation can be nullified expeditiously when facts are admitted.
Also Read: Worli Flat Sold For ₹51 Crore
