Mumbai: A city civil court directed a housing society in Chembur to hand over the keys of a redeveloped flat to a 63-year-old widow and her son, ending years of homelessness caused by an internal family feud. The court ruled the daughter-in-law and grandson of the original member were the rightful occupants, as they were the ones residing in the premises before the building was demolished for reconstruction in 2005. While the society had withheld possession citing conflicting claims from the deceased member’s married daughters, the court observed that the daughters had failed to prove their right to exclusive or joint possession in the absence of a proper partition suit. The court held the housing society and its secretary must perform their statutory obligation. “Defendant nos 1 and 2 being society and secretary are hereby directed to hand over the suit flat to the plaintiff nos 1 and 2 within one month from today,” Judge C S Datir said on Monday.The court also addressed the issue of unpaid transit rent of Rs 2.48 lakh. While the society claimed it could not distribute funds while the family was at odds, the court found that a specific amount of arrears was already lying with the society management. The judge ordered the immediate release of these funds to the widow. However, the court declined to grant a higher monthly compensation of Rs 25,000 or additional interest, noting the developer, who is responsible for such payments, was not made a party to the suit. The judge clarified the plaintiffs could pursue those monetary claims through a separate legal action against the builder. The legal battle originated from a flat in the Tilak Nagar Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society, originally owned by Kesarinath Dhotre. Following his death and the subsequent passing of his sons, a dispute erupted between Priti Dhotre and her son, Prakash, on one side, and her sisters-in-law, Sadhana Chiplunkar and Chhaya Javeri, on the other. The sisters-in-law raised objections with the society, claiming a share in the estate and requesting the redeveloped flat not be handed over to Priti. Consequently, the society refused to part with the possession or pay the pending rent for alternate accommodation, citing the need for a clear court order to determine the rightful heir.The court noted Priti had resided in the matrimonial home since marriage and continued to stay there with her son until the building was handed over to the developer in 2005. The court found that the married daughters lived with their respective husbands and were not in possession of the flat at the time of redevelopment. Regarding the society’s refusal to act, the judgment noted, “It would be appropriated to direct the defendant nos 1 and 2 (housing society and secretary) to hand over the suit flat to the present plaintiff being a coparceners of late Kesarinath Dhotre.” In the context of Hindu Law in India, coparceners are a specific subset of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who, by birth, acquire a legal right to the ancestral property of the family. The court noted that although defendants 3 and 4 are married daughters and legally recognized as coparceners of the Hindu Joint Family, their separate legal claim for partition was dismissed. This dismissal was based on the “partial partition theory”, as they failed to include all joint family properties in their suit. By not bringing the entire estate into the “common hotchpotch,” their claim to the specific disputed flat could not be sustained. Since the daughters’ claims were rejected and the flat is currently in the possession of the housing society, the court determined that the property should be handed over to the plaintiff.
