RUKHSANA BARODAWALA, W/O LAT MR. ATTAR BARODAWALA vs MAHARUKH MEDIOMAH PATEL, D/O. SORAB KEKI ENGINEER

Judgment text excerpt

Neeta Sawant CRA 64/2021 WITH CRA 304/2021 - FC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 64 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18325 OF 2022 Maharukh Mediomah Patel …..Applicant : Versus : Ruksana Barodawala & Anr. ….Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2021 Ruksana Barodawala w/o Late Mr. Attar Barodawala …..Applicant : Versus : Maharukh Mediomah Patel & Anr. ….Respondents Ms. Kashmira Bharucha i/b Mr. Prasad Gajbhiye for the Applicant in CRA/64/2021 and IA/18325/2022 and for Respondent No.1 in CRA/304/2021. Ms. Gayatri Sharma with Ms. Khushboo Yadav i/b M/s. S. K. Srivastav & Co. for Applicant in CRA/304/2021 and for the Respondent No. 1 in CRA/64/2021. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. JUDG. RESD. ON: 14 NOVEMBER 2025. JUDG. PRON. ON: 26 NOVEMBER 2025. JUDGMENT: 1) This is a classic case of a caretaker who had entered the property to take care of a senior citizen and has taken over possession, not _____________________________________________________________________________ Page Nos. 1 of 34 26 NOVEMBER 2025 Neeta Sawant CRA 64/2021 WITH CRA 304/2021 - FC just of the property of her care-seeker but has also grabbed the adjoining property of another lonely senior citizen taking disadvantage of his hospitalization. The City Civil Court has upheld the plea of unlawful dispossession in suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, but has declined to decree the suit by adopting a hyper-technical approach that the description of the suit property was not sufficient enough for passing ‘effective’ and ‘enforceable’ decree. Thus, despite succeeding in proving unlawful dispossession, the Plaintiff is denied the relief of restoration of possession resulting in the caretaker succeeding in g