The suit property is Final Plot No. 650 of Bandra Town Planning Scheme-III, an open plot admeasuring approximately 450 square yards situated on S.V. Road (Ghodbunder Road), Bandra — a highly valuable commercial location. The land was first leased in 1934 by Domnic A. D’Monte to Moogatlal J. Bhat for five years and five months. Subsequent leases followed in 1949 and finally on March 6, 1959. All three lease deeds explicitly covered only open/vacant land, with clear covenants requiring the lessee to remove all structures at the expiry of the lease term and hand over vacant possession of the land in its original condition.

Around 1948-49, Moogatlal constructed three temporary structures (Gala Nos. 1, 2 and 3) on the plot. He let out Gala No. 1 to Halimabai Madraswala (later transferred to White Rose Properties Pvt. Ltd. / Vadilal Kunverji Gada group) and Galas 2 and 3 to Jagannath Tare and his family. The 1959 lease was executed after all 15 legal heirs of Moogatlal surrendered their rights in the land. A fresh lease was created only in favour of three joint tenants — Parvatishankar Moogatlal Bhat, Madhusudan Moogatlal Bhat, and Vijaykumar Moogatlal Bhat — with an express survivorship clause. The lease expired on December 31, 1979.

After the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 withdrew protection for open-land tenancies, the landlords filed T.E. & R. Suit No. 66 of 2002 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, against the heirs of the lessees. The heirs of the last surviving joint tenant (Vijaykumar Bhat) — Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 — executed consent terms on April 29, 2006, surrendering the tenancy. Other heirs of Moogatlal had already filed additional written statements disclaiming any tenancy rights. The suit was decreed on consent on May 6, 2006.

When the landlords sought execution of the decree, they encountered obstruction from the occupants of the three Galas. They filed Obstructionist Notice No. 15 of 2006. The Small Causes Court (Trial Court) allowed the notice on November 3, 2018, directing obstructionists (including White Rose Properties Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for Gala 1, and the Tare family for Galas 2 and 3) to vacate the premises, permitting the landlords to demolish the structures at the obstructionists’ cost, and ordering an enquiry into mesne profits.

The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court reversed this order on May 4, 2022, erroneously holding that the consent decree was an “incomplete decree” as it was not against all 15 alleged tenants and that the obstructionists were lawful sub-tenants of the landlords.

Justice Marne, in a detailed 65-page judgment, set aside the Appellate Bench’s order, describing its reasoning as “fundamentally erroneous,” “perverse,” and based on a complete misreading of the 1959 lease deed. The High Court clarified that the 15 heirs had surrendered their rights and that tenancy was created only in favour of the three named joint tenants with survivorship. The consent decree was therefore valid and fully executable.

On the rights of the obstructionists, the Court held that since the lease was only of open land with an explicit obligation to remove structures, the occupants were mere licensees of the original lessee. They had no privity of contract with the landlords and no independent right to occupy the structures once the head tenancy ended. The Court relied on long-settled principles from judgments such as Jamnadas Dharamdas v. Dr. J. Joseph Farreira, Sanjay Ramchandra Parab v. Ashok D. Bhuta, Ramkrishna G. Dode v. Anand Govind Kelkar, Virji Nathuram v. Krishnakumar, and Goregaon Malayalee Samaj v. Popatlal Prabhudas. It ruled that Sections 15 and 15A of the Bombay Rent Act do not protect occupants of structures built on leased open land where the lessee was bound to demolish them.

The High Court emphasized that in obstructionist proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC, the obstructionist must prove an independent right; they cannot collaterally challenge a valid decree. No such right existed in this case. The plea for stay of the judgment was rejected.

Outcome: The obstructionists must forthwith vacate Gala Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The landlords are entitled to demolish the structures and recover the cost from the obstructionists. An enquiry into mesne profits will now proceed. The ruling is likely to impact similar long-pending open-land lease disputes in Mumbai where third-party occupants claim protection.

Also Read: Landowners Win vs NHAI: Bombay HC Upholds Higher Compensation

The post Bombay HC Ends 20-Year Battle, Orders Eviction from Prime Bandra Plot appeared first on Square Feat India.

The property in question is a house and plot located in the prestigious Salsette Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., a century-old Roman Catholic enclave in Bandra West known for its preserved colonial-era charm and community-focused bylaws.

How It Started: The Family Wills and Early Tensions

The saga began with Sonny Rita Coelho (the father) and Maria Francisca Coelho (the mother), who married in 1931-32 and had six children: sons George (b. 1933, deceased), Reginald (b. 1935, deceased), Victor (b. 1938, deceased), Neville (b. 1940, deceased), Anthony (deceased), and daughter Myra Philomena Collaco (b. 1946, the appellant).

On August 22, 1971, Sonny executed a Will appointing Maria as life tenant of the property, with the house and plot devolving after her death to sons Victor (ground floor) and Neville (first floor) as tenants-in-common. They were required to pay Rs. 10,000 each to the estate, from which Rs. 5,000 each went to George, Reginald, and Myra, and the remaining Rs. 5,000 to Anthony (conditional on him stopping alcohol consumption).

Sonny died on January 26, 1976. His Will was probated on April 24, 1980, without objections from the children.

On July 7, 1982, Maria executed her own Will, bequeathing all her movable and immovable property (including interests in the Bandra house) to Myra and sons George and Reginald—completely excluding Victor and Neville. Maria passed away on November 24, 1985. In a 1982 affidavit, she claimed ignorance of Sonny’s Will, suggesting it was made in “a fit of temper.”

The Legal Battle Unfolds

In December 1985, Myra filed a suit for administration of Maria’s estate. Victor contested, asserting no valid 1982 Will existed and that the property belonged exclusively to Sonny (purchased from his funds, as Maria was never gainfully employed).

In April 1987, Myra filed Testamentary Petition No. 209 of 1987 for Letters of Administration with Maria’s Will annexed. After Victor’s death in 1993, his widow Lilian Coelho and sons Conrad and Dylan filed a caveat in 1999, converting it into Testamentary Suit No. 33 of 1999.

The suit framed key issues: due execution and attestation, testamentary capacity, forgery, undue influence/coercion/fraud, and entitlement to administration.

Evidence included testimony from the Will’s drafting advocate (PW-1) and Myra’s husband (PW-2), while Lilian testified as the sole defence witness.

The Rollercoaster of Judgments

On March 7, 2003, the Single Judge upheld formal proof of execution, attestation, sound mind, and absence of coercion/fraud/forgery. However, he identified three suspicious circumstances: (a) the Will was cryptic and omitted property details; (b) Myra played a prominent role in its execution; (c) no explanation for excluding Victor and Neville (natural heirs).

Finding these suspicions unexplained by the propounder (Myra), the suit was dismissed, denying Letters of Administration.

Myra appealed. On January 22, 2009, a Division Bench reversed the order and granted the Letters.

Lilian’s family appealed to the Supreme Court, which on January 2, 2025, set aside the 2009 judgment for inadequate reasoning on suspicious circumstances and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration.

Final Resolution: Closure in 2025

On December 30, 2025, the remanded Division Bench reaffirmed the Single Judge’s findings. While formal validity was established, the suspicious circumstances persisted and were not dispelled to the court’s satisfaction. Citing established precedents on the propounder’s burden in testamentary cases, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The ruling effectively denies probate to Maria’s 1982 Will, leaving inheritance governed by Sonny’s probated 1971 Will or applicable intestate rules.

In its prologue, the Court reflected poignantly: “We are confronted with yet another family saga where the slugfest between the parties… It is in such context that the contesting parties seek to assert their rival claims and legal rights over the suit property.”

This marks the end of a 38-year dispute (from the 1987 petition), highlighting the emotional and legal toll of prolonged family inheritance battles in India.

Also Read: Redevelopment Disputes Can’t Be Thrown Out Without Trial: Bombay High Court

The post After 38 Years, Bandra Property Dispute Between Brothers and Sister Finds Peace appeared first on Square Feat India.