In a poignant reminder of how long justice can take in India’s real estate disputes, a homebuyer who booked a flat in 1977 and fought relentlessly for nearly five decades has finally been told she will not get the home she paid for — but she will get her money back with interest.
Kanchan G. Rohira had signed a registered agreement for sale on January 9, 1977, with Nirmal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for Flat No. 15 in Building No. 11, Rani Sati Nagar, Malad. The total price was ₹26,000. She promptly paid ₹10,500 as advance — almost 40% of the cost — through cheques and received official receipts.
The agreement promised possession by May 30, 1977. But the builder never delivered. Internal disputes among the company’s directors led to a Company Petition in the Bombay High Court. Construction stalled. Years passed.
In September 1981, the builder suddenly sent a termination letter, forfeiting her entire ₹10,500 and claiming she had failed to pay the balance on time. Rohira immediately protested through her advocate. She offered to pay the remaining ₹15,500 — first ₹5,000 in November 1981, then the full balance in December 1981 — but the builder refused the cheques and informed her the flat had already been sold to someone else.
Undeterred, Rohira filed Suit No. 1642 of 1984 in the Bombay High Court seeking specific performance — that is, the actual delivery of the flat she had booked and paid for. During the pendency of the suit, she learnt the flat had been sold first to Ravi Overseas Corporation and then, in May 1986, to Suresh Bhagwandas Dhoot for ₹1,30,000. Dhoot took possession, shifted in, performed vastu shanti, got married from that address, transferred the society share certificate in his name, and lived there for decades.
The trial finally concluded in January 2010 — 26 years after the suit was filed. The single judge ruled that Rohira had always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount, and that the builder’s termination notice was illegal. However, citing the long passage of time and Dhoot’s long possession, the court exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and refused to hand over the flat. Instead, it awarded her ₹1,52,250 as damages (reflecting the increased market value) plus 6% interest, and ordered refund of her original ₹10,500 with 12% interest from the date of payment.
Both sides appealed. Rohira wanted her flat. Dhoot wanted the adverse findings against him set aside.
On April 2, 2026 — almost 49 years after she first paid the booking amount — a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Sandesh D. Patil) delivered its judgment. The court upheld the findings that Rohira was ready and willing and that the termination was illegal. It also clarified that Dhoot was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because the 1977 agreement, though registered, had not been properly entered in the required indexes under the Registration Act, so no constructive notice could be fastened on him.
Most importantly, the judges declined to interfere with the trial court’s refusal to grant specific performance. “It would not be proper to pass a decree thereby evicting the Defendant No.4 from the said flat which he is occupying since 1986,” the court observed.
After nearly half a century of litigation — from the booking in 1977, the suit in 1984, the trial in 2010, and the appeals decided today — Kanchan Rohira will not get the home she fought so hard for. But the High Court has confirmed the monetary decree in her favour: the refund of her hard-earned ₹10,500 with 12% interest from 1976-77, plus the damages awarded.
The interim status quo order has been extended by six weeks, giving her time to consider further appeal to the Supreme Court if she so desires.
For a generation of homebuyers who remember the 1970s housing boom in Mumbai, this judgment is both a victory for monetary justice and a sobering reminder of how long the wait for justice can be.
Also Read: Homebuyers Alert: MahaRERA Rejects Tharwani Ariana Deregistration Bid Amid Contradictions
