Suit is maintainable as on father demise Sayed had 50 per cent share in property.

2) resident owners can take the plea that suit is barred by limitation.plots were sold in year 2000-2015 and suit filed after period of 18 years 

3) further suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties .GPA holder and Muslim resident owner ,developer have not been made parties ti the suit 

4) case of Ramesh proves  that Sayed was aware of sale of plots but did not take any legal proceedings for last 7 years 

5) take the plea that court fees not paid on the value of property 

Suit is maintainable along with cheating case of the land is sold to several buyers 

only if the seller or gpa had the full powers & exclusive rights to sell then only the transaction will be. Valid 

1.  If you are the defendant and any relief sought against you, then you may file a written statement denying all his allegations based on the background facts of the case.

If what you have mentioned is true then the suit is just a vexatious and not maintainable.

He might have filed only to put pressure on all others in order to extort money.

If properly challenged then this suit can be easily dismissed.

2. On the basis of his registered sale deed 

3. No partition suit can be maintained for the one acre of land already sold.

4. The registered sale deeds executed by the POA agent will come to the rescue of the buyers/defendants.

5. You can file an objection for undervalue of the property and can seek rejection on this grounds also.

6. In your written statement you can mention this and insist before court to direct the plaintiff to implead the power agent or else you can ask the agent to file a petition under order 1 rule 10 cpc in this regard

Details like GPA, Court litigations in respect of land in question etc are required to be examined. Nevertheless based upon the averments in terms of GPA by Asif and Sayed the agreements including sale deed or sale agreement executed by Kishan being GPA holder are valid and enforceable against said and Asif and Sayed. It is pertinent that stated agreements, sale deed was executed during 2001 to 2005 and more than 20 years. After sale and handing over the possession, in 2016 the act of Sayed raising boundary wall was illegal and Ramesh has ever power to get removed the Wall and to take possession and also to claim damages. 

1. & 2. The suit is not maintainable.  Though in terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act the time limit to file a partition suit is 12 years so Sayed to cover lapses has take the plea that he had recent came to know that new purchasers and defendants are in illegal possession on the basis of some forged and concocted document without his consent but the same is not tenable in law being case highly belated and barred by limitation. Conduct of Sayed and Asif shows that defendant were is possession ever since from date of purchase in 2001 to 2005 and it is apparent from Asif and Sayed have never objected nor initiated proceeding to exert their right and ownership. Defendant being bonafide purchasers are in uninterrupted possession so by rule of adverse possessions defendants can assert their rights and possession in respect of their area. Further agreements including sale deed or sale agreement executed by Kishan being GPA holder are valid and enforceable against said and Asif and Sayed and their legal representatives. Rest defense and grounds can be ascertained on the basis of pleadings set by Sayed and details of case. 

3. No

4. Yes

5. Court fee shall be decided on the basis of market value of the property. 

6. File application under order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead necessary parties are on record. Developer does not seem to be necessary party, as developer has limited role to carry development work only and developer has no concern with question involved. Developer can be called as witness also. 

If required consult with detail and record. 

Dear client,  

This is a complex legal case with several issues. Here are some possible answers to your questions:

The suit is maintainable on the ground that Sayed is claiming his share of the ancestral property. Asif and Sayed inherited the property from their father Karim, and Sayed has the right to claim his share.

The residents in possession can file an objection on the basis of adverse possession. If they have been in possession of the property for more than 12 years without interruption, they may be able to claim ownership of the property.

The suit can be considered as a partial partition suit because Sayed is only claiming his share of the property. However, if he wants to claim the entire property, he may need to file a suit for partition and possession.

The Ramesh case and sale of the commercial site may help to defend against Sayed's claim, especially if the sale was conducted in a legally valid manner. However, this will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

The court jurisdiction will depend on the value of the property. If the property value is not mentioned in the valuation slip, the court may determine jurisdiction based on the market value of the property or other relevant factors.

Sayed can emphasize to the court that GPA holder Kishan, the developer, and other resident members should be included as parties in the suit because they have an interest in the property and their presence is necessary for a fair and just adjudication of the case. However, it will ultimately be up to the court to decide whether to include them as parties.

GPA ceases on demise of principal unless coupled with consideration 

2) seek share in sale proceeds of residential layout developed already 

3) don’t take any criminal proceedings 

Already replied. 

1. You have to find out that what were the documents filed by the plaintiff to prove his claim before court. 

2. You have to confine to your relief alone without bothering about other developments.

3. You find out that. 

4. If there's a suit for partition and it's to be challenged,  then the due process of law to be followed. 

5. No.

Yes fir can be filed. You can seek partition in above case. Limitation is available from your knowledge 

Dear client,  

If the GPA holder Kishan is not alive and cannot be located, the court may appoint a legal representative or guardian ad litem to act on his behalf. The legal representative or guardian will be responsible for representing Kishan's interests in the case. If the legal representative or guardian cannot be located, the court may proceed with the case without them, and any decision made by the court may be binding on Kishan's interests.

The principle of partition will depend on the specific laws and regulations in your jurisdiction. In general, when property is developed into a residential layout, the value of each individual site is determined based on its location, size, and other factors. If the property is being divided among multiple owners, the value of each owner's share will be based on the value of their respective sites.

Sayed will need to submit all relevant documents related to the property, including the mother deed, any sale agreements, and any other legal documents related to the property. He will also need to provide evidence of his relationship to the property and his claim to a share of the property.

The holding of the property owner mentioned in the mother deed will depend on the specific terms of the mother deed and any subsequent agreements or contracts. In general, if the property is developed into a residential layout and sold as individual sites, the owner mentioned in the mother deed may retain ownership of any unsold sites or receive a share of the proceeds from the sale of individual sites.

It is unlikely that criminal action can be taken against Sayed on the basis of religious discrimination or creating enmity in the residents. However, if there is evidence that Sayed has violated any civil or criminal laws, he may be subject to legal action. It is recommended that Sayed consult with an experienced attorney who can review the details of the case and provide guidance on any potential legal risks.

Dear Sir,

LIMITATION 12 YEARS FOR FILING SUIT FOR PARTITION

ARTICLE 110 OF LIMITATION ACT

When suit for partition will become barred by limitation?

Article106   of   the   Limitation   Act   provides   for   period   of   12   years   limitation   for   adistributive   share   of   the   property   of   intestate   against   other   person   illegallycharged with the duty of distributing the estate.  Time begins under Article 106when the legacy and share becomes payable or deliverable.  Under Article 110 ofschedule­I of the Limitation Act, suit has to be filed within 12 years by a personexcluded   from   joint   family   property   to  enforce   a   right   therein   which   timecommences when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff.  Even if it is thecase of the plaintiff that he was deprived of property of the deceased father byfirst defendant is concerned,  

Article­106 of schedule­I to the Limitation Actwould be attracted.   Consent award was declared on 15th April 1986.  Decree interms of consent award was passed in 1991 whereas suit is filed on 6th  April2011.  Prayer (b) thus in my view is on the face of it barred by law of limitation.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO. 808 OF 2011

NareshLachmandasAswani  

Vs.

Haridas alias HardasLachmandas

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Dated: 18th OCTOBER, 2013

Citation: 2016 (4) ALLMR 286

By an order dated 26th  July, 2012 passed by this court, two issueswere framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Notice ofMotion NO. 1157 of 2011.  In view of the issues framed under section  9A of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be tried as jurisdictional issue, both parties weregiven opportunity to lead oral evidence on the jurisdictional issues framed by thiscourt. Learned counsel have addressed on those issues which are answered bythis court in the later part of the judgment. 

ARTICLE 106 OF LIMITATION ACT MAY BE VIEWED online.