In a major relief to residents of Mumbai’s Mantri Building Condominium at Gamdevi, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a civil suit filed by the heirs of the original owner seeking to block the building’s redevelopment.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, in his detailed 25-page judgment delivered on October 17, 2025, held that the plaintiffs — Neeraj Sharad Gangla and others — had filed the case nearly 20 years too late and that it was a “hopelessly time-barred” attempt to stall the redevelopment of a century-old property.

What the Case Was About

The plaintiffs, descendants of the original leaseholder, claimed that their late father, Sharad Madhavrao Gangla, had wrongfully executed documents in 2004–2005 transferring ownership of 16 out of 17 units in the Mantri Building to tenants, converting them into apartment owners under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAO Act).

They alleged that these actions were done without their consent or knowledge, and that they only became aware of the documents in January 2024 when they saw a draft redevelopment agreement for the building.

Accordingly, they approached the High Court in February 2025 seeking to declare the 2004–05 apartment deeds and the 2024 redevelopment agreement void.

Defendants’ Stand: Suit Aimed at Stalling Redevelopment

The Mantri Building Condominium, formed by the flat owners (Defendant No. 1), countered that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the ownership conversion for two decades and that the redevelopment process was being obstructed by filing a belated case.

Their counsel, Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, argued that the case was governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, which gives 12 years to challenge the father’s alienation of ancestral property — not the 3-year period under Article 59 as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Since the deeds of apartment and transfer were executed and registered between 2004 and 2005, the limitation expired in 2017, making the 2025 suit invalid.

Court’s Findings: Clever Drafting Can’t Save a Time-Barred Case

Justice Marne agreed with the defendants, observing that the plaintiffs’ arguments about discovering the deeds only in 2024 were “nothing but clever drafting” and that registered documents presume public knowledge.

The court held that:

• The suit property was ancestral, and thus governed by Article 109 (12-year limit).
• The period of limitation began from the date of execution and possession transfer of the apartments in 2004–2005.
• The plaintiffs, who owned a unit in the same building and benefited from the Condominium’s management, could not claim ignorance of its formation for two decades.
• The lawsuit appeared strategically timed to derail the redevelopment process.

“Redevelopment Cannot Be Delayed by Hopeless Litigation”

Calling the case a “deliberate move to scuttle redevelopment,” the court remarked that the century-old building urgently needs redevelopment and cannot be held hostage to stale disputes.

Justice Marne concluded:

“The suit is aimed clearly at preventing redevelopment of the building. No purpose would be served by subjecting the defendants to a lengthy trial as the same is ex-facie barred by limitation.”

The court therefore rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the suit.

Key Takeaways for Housing Societies and Heirs

• Registered property deeds cannot be challenged decades later; they carry a presumption of public knowledge.
• Heirs of former owners cannot block redevelopment if they have slept over their rights for years.
• Courts may reject cases at the preliminary stage if they are seen as attempts to stall redevelopment.
• The judgment reinforces that redevelopment rights belong to the majority of apartment owners, and frivolous litigation will not be entertained.

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Adani, Rejects UAE Firm’s Plea

The post Bombay HC Dismisses Suit Blocking Gamdevi Building’s Redevelopment, Says, Case Filed 20 Years Too Late appeared first on Square Feat India.

The decision came in a long-running dispute at Treasure Park, a registered condominium in Pune, where owners of larger flats were paying the same monthly maintenance as those with smaller flats.

The Case at a Glance

• Society: Treasure Park, Pune — 11 buildings, 356 apartments.
• Law Involved: Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970.
• Main Issue: Should all flats pay equal maintenance, or should it depend on flat size?

The Dispute

For years, Treasure Park billed all flat owners the same maintenance, regardless of whether they owned a 2BHK or 4BHK. Owners of smaller flats objected, saying this violated Section 10 of the Apartment Act, which requires common expenses to be shared in proportion to each owner’s “undivided interest” in the common areas and facilities.

In November 2020, five owners of smaller flats filed a complaint with the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

Timeline of Events

• Nov 2020: Complaint filed by small flat owners.
• 08 July 2021: Deputy Registrar orders proportional maintenance billing based on flat size.
• 13 May 2022: Co-operative Court upholds the Deputy Registrar’s order.
• Aug 2022: Society implements proportional billing.
• 04 August 2025: Bombay High Court dismisses challenge by large flat owners, confirming the proportional system.

What the Court Said

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that both the Deed of Declaration of the society and the Apartment Act clearly require maintenance charges to be linked to the size/value of the flat.

The court rejected arguments that larger flats should not pay more since all residents use the facilities equally. It said proportionate contribution is part of the law and cannot be overridden by previous society resolutions for equal charges.

Impact of the Ruling

• Larger flats will pay higher maintenance than smaller ones.
• Societies under the Apartment Act must follow proportional charging.
• Equal-charge systems can be challenged if they violate the law.

Also Read: SEBI advocates regularization of Fractional Ownership Platforms

The post Bombay HC: Maintenance Charges Must Match Your Flat Size appeared first on Square Feat India.