HARSHAD GAWDE AND ANR.versusM/S. SWATI BUILDERS THR. ITS PARTNER MANISH PRAKASH MUTHA

2026:BHC-AS:30617

                                                                      44 AO 998-2023(f).doc



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 998 OF 2023

                    1.   Harshad Gawde
                         Age 33 years, Indian Inhabitant
                         Occupation Business,
                         R/o Everest Colony, Beturkar Pada
                         Taluka Kalyan Dist Thane 421301

                    2.   Gorakh Dnyandeo Sable
                         Age 53 years, Indian Inhabitant
                         Occupation Business,
                         R/o Tukaram Niwas Kala Talav
                         Beturkar Pada, Taluka Kalyan                 ... Appellants.
                         Dist Thane 421301                            (Orig.Defendants)
                          Versus

                         M/s. Swati Builders
                         A parntership 9rm, duly registered under
                         Indian Partnership Act, through its Partner
                         Shri Manish Prakash Mutha,
                         Age – 37 years, Indian Inhabitant
                         Occupation Business
                         Having its registered o<ce at
                         101-103, 1st Floor, Vikas Heights,
                         Santoshi Mata Road, Kalyan West             ... Respondent.
                         Dist Thane 421301                           (Orig. Plainti?)

                                           —————
                Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Amrut Joshi, Rakesh V. Misar, Bhushan Raut,
                Vaishnavi Tiwari and Rahul Jadhav i/by RVM Legal for Appellant.
                Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Aniesh Jadhav, Ativ Patel and Harshad
                Vyas i/by AVP Partners for Respondent.
                                              —————




                sa_mandawgad                      1 of 19
                                                      44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


                              Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
                        Reserved on : July 14, 2026
                        Pronounced on : July 27, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.       Heard. Admit. With consent, taken up for 9nal hearing

forthwith.

2.       The present appeal is at the instance of the original

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 3rd May, 2023 passed by the Trial Court injuncting the

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from entering and creating any third-party

rights in respect of the suit property.

3.       Special Civil Suit No.403 of 2022 was 9led seeking inter alia a

declaration that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not the partners of

the Plainti? 9rm and have no authority in law or any right, title and

interest to deal with the suit properties and that the registered sale

deed dated 5th May, 2022 executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2

by acting as partners of the Plainti? 9rm is illegal and null and void

and not binding on the Plainti? and be cancelled.

4.       The suit property is described in plaint paragraph 2 as CTS

Nos. 631, 632, 2765 and 2766 admeasuring 5910.55 square meters

and is referred to as suit property no 1, 2, 3 and 4 individually. The

Plainti?       came with the case that the suit property no.1 was


sa_mandawgad                     2 of 19
                                                  44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


acquired from one Anandji Daya Rathod and 19 other co-owners by

registered development agreement dated 15th July, 2002 and the

entire consideration was paid by the Plainti? and registered Power

of Attorney (PoA) dated 15th July, 2002 was executed in favour of

the Plainti? with full ownership rights in respect of the suit

property. The plaint further sets out similar agreements which

were executed on 23rd July, 2003, 10th September, 2003 and 15th

July, 2002 in respect of the suit property Nos.2, 3 and 4. It is

pleaded that       Defendant No.2 was earlier the partner of the

Plainti? 9rm but had retired on 17 th October, 2011 and has

executed the registered sale deed dated 5th May, 2022 acting as

partner of the Plainti? without any authority and on the basis of

the PoA executed by the landowners in favour of the Plainti?.

5.        The written statement contend that in or about 2002-2003,

the development rights of the four suit properties was purchased

by late Balu Gawde and Defendant No.2 from the original owners

and for the sake of convenience, the documents were executed in

the name of Plainti?. At that point of time there were two partners

of the 9rm and as the consideration was paid by Balu Gawde and

Defendant No.2, hence the documents came to be executed in

favour of Balu Gawde and the defendant No.2 as partners of



sa_mandawgad                   3 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


Plainti? along with the irrevocable PoA. In an attempt to generate

funds in the partnership account, in the year 2011, Manish Mutha

and Pravin Chhajed were taken as partners and it was agreed that

they will infuse funds in the partnership, so that late Balu Gawde

and defendant No.2 can be refunded the amounts paid by them for

acquiring the development rights in the property. As the funds

were not brought in by Manish Mutha and Pravin Chhajed, the

development rights in the property continued to be owned by late

Balu Gawde and defendant No.2. As Manish Mutha and Pravin

Chhajed had never paid any amount towards the capital

contribution of Swati Builders, they were never e?ectively inducted

as partners of the said 9rm. In 2009, Balu Gawde applied for non-

agricultural use of the property and the entire expenses of the suit

property was incurred by Balu Gawde and Defendant No.2.

6.       In February, 2021, Balu Gawde expired and in July, 2021, a

partnership     deed   was   executed    between   the    defendants

re-constituting a partnership 9rm called “Swati Builders” for

development of the suit properties, which was the subject matter

of the development agreement and the sale deed of 5th May, 2022

was executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the partnership 9rm

of the two Defendants. The Defendants are in actual and physical



sa_mandawgad                   4 of 19
                                                    44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


possession of all the suit properties and there is no relief sought of

recovery of possession of the suit properties from the Defendants.

7.       The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) sought injunctive reliefs against

the defendants from misusing the sale deed of 5th May, 2022 and

from entering into the suit properties and disturbing the lawful

possession of the Plainti? over the suit properties and not to

create any third party interest in respect of the suit properties.

8.       The Trial Court noted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have

reconstituted the 9rm with themselves and Late Balu Gawde as

partners. It noted that Defendant no 2 has already retired from the

9rm on 17th October, 2011 and opined that upon death of Balu

Gawde, Defendant No 1 could have raised appropriate demand for

being inducted as partner of the Plainti? 9rm. It held that there is

no document to establish that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are partners

of the Plainti?. It held that the sale transaction had taken place

when Balu Gawde and Defendant No.2 were partners of the

Plainti? 9rm.

9.       The Trial Court perused the conveyance of 5 th May, 2022 and

observed that the earlier conveyance has been annexed to the

indenture of the year 2022 by using the PoA of 2002. The Trial


sa_mandawgad                    5 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


Court held that it is not open for Defendants to raise a challenge to

the admission of Manish Mutha and Pravin Chajjed in the

partnership 9rm.

10.      The Trial Court opined that the suit properties were

purchased by the Plainti? 9rm in the year 2003 and consideration

was paid by the 9rm. It declined to accept the photographs

produced by the Defendants as proof of possession.

11.      Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the Defendants

have stated the history of the constitution of the partnership 9rm

of Swati Builders, the retirement of other two partners leaving only

Balu Gawde and Gorakh Sable as the partners of the partnership

9rm in the year 1991. He would further submit that the registered

development-cum-sale agreement as well as the PoA in respect of

the four suit properties were executed by the father of the

defendant No.1, who is now deceased and the defendant No.2 as

partner of Swati Builders. He submits that on 17 th October, 2011,

the defendant No.2 retired as partner and Balu Gawde, Manish

Mutha and Pravin Chhajed continued the 9rm as Swati Builders. He

submits that as      Manish Mutha and Pravin Chhajed did not

contribute any funds, the deed of reconstitution was e?ectively

never acted upon between the parties.



sa_mandawgad                  6 of 19
                                                     44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


12.      He would submit that on 23rd July, 2021, there was

reconstitution of partnership deed between the defendant No.1

and Defendant Nos.2 and on 5 th May, 2022, the sale deed was

executed by the original owners of the suit properties in favour of

the defendants as partners of Swati Builders. He submits that the

suit is bad for non joinder of original owners, who are necessary

parties. He would further submit that under the PoA executed in

the year 2002-2003, the original owners granted authority to

defendant No.2 and late Balu Gawde to deal with the suit

properties on behalf of the original owners. He has taken this Court

in detail through the 9ndings of the Trial Court and would submit

that the Plainti? has failed to make out a prima facie case as the

development agreements were executed by Balu Gawde and

Defendant No.2 and the payments in respect of the suit property

was made by them. He would further submit that the incoming

partners were inducted only upon payment of Rs.50,000/- and are

now seeking to stake a claim to the valuable suit properties.

13.      On the aspect of possession, he would point out that the Trial

Court has rejected the photographs by considering only the 9rst

photograph as the same reHected the notice put up on the suit

property       in   the   background   without   noticing   the    other



sa_mandawgad                     7 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


photographs taken from inside of the suit properties. He submits

that the possession of the suit property was given to the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 as partners of Swati Builders and the possession is still

with them. He submits that the Plainti? has to make out a case of

being in possession of the property and there is no document

produced by them to demonstrate the same. He would submit that

at the highest, the injunction against creating third party rights

could have been granted. He would further submit that the Trial

Court overlooked the legal position that the partnership 9rm does

not enjoy any independent legal existence and the possession was

with the defendant no.2 and the father of the defendant no.1 all

along. He submits that there is no title deed/document to prima

facie show that Manish Mutha derived title with respect to the suit

properties and being admitted to the 9rm of Swati Builders in the

year       2011,   he   had   no   personal   knowledge       of    the

transactions/payments made to the original owners. He submits

that there is a cloud on the title of original plainti? to the suit

property and without declaration of title, the present suit is not

maintainable. He would submit that in order to protect possession,

the plainti? is 9rst required to prove not only title to the property

but also that it is in physical possession. He submits that



sa_mandawgad                   8 of 19
                                                    44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


admittedly, late Balu Gawde was a partner and was a co-owner of

the suit properties and as legal heir, the Defendant No.1 would

have a right as co-owner and could not be restrained from entering

into the suit properties.

14.      Per contra, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for

the Respondent-original plainti? would submit that on 1st

September, 1991 upon the retirement of the other partners of the

9rm, it was only Balu Gawde and Gorakh Sable, who continued the

business as partners of the 9rm and therefore, the PoA and

development agreements were executed by them, though, in their

capacity as partners of the 9rm. He submits that after defendant

no.2 retired on 17th October, 2011, Manish Mutha and Pravin

Chhajed joined as partners along with Balu Gawde and continued

the business. He submits that on 18 th February, 2021, Balu Gawde

expired and Manish Mutha and Pravin Chhajed along with Shyam

Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. continued the business as partners of the 9rm and

defendant No.1 Harshad Gawde was never concerned with the

plainti? 9rm in any capacity and was never inducted as partner.

15.      He submits that after the death of Balu Gawde, on 21 st July,

2021, the defendants reconstituted a new partnership 9rm along

with Balu Gawde, who had expired with the same name i.e. Swati



sa_mandawgad                    9 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


Builders for the purported development of the suit property,

despite the defendant no.2 having retired in the year 2011 and

defendant No.1 never being a partner of the Plainti? 9rm. He

submits that by the impugned deed of conveyance of 5th May, 2022,

the Defendants as partners of the new 9rm purported to acquire

rights in the suit property using the PoA that was executed in the

year 2002-2003 in favour of the Plainti? 9rm-Swati Builders and the

undertaking annexed to the conveyance clearly refers to the PoA

executed in the year 2002-2003 in favour of the Plainti? 9rm, as the

only purported authority for executing the impugned conveyance.

He submits that the Trial Court has rightly held that the Defendants

have not furnished any proof of being partners of the Plainti? 9rm

at the time of execution of the sale deed of 5th May, 2022.

16.      He submits that the under the registered documents

executed in the year 2002-2003, the possession was handed over as

partners of the 9rm and not in their individual capacity and the

possession remained with the partnership 9rm. He submits that as

the property is a vacant land, possession follows title. He submits

that as the defendants have failed to prove their right in the suit

properties as well as possession, the Trial Court has rightly

restrained the defendants from entering into the suit properties



sa_mandawgad                  10 of 19
                                                     44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


and from creating any third party rights. He submits that the

contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the original

owners was not a submission canvassed before the Trial Court. He

submits that in any event, the challenge was to the registered sale

deed of 5th May, 2022 which was executed on the basis of PoA and

therefore, there is no requirement of impleading the original

owners.

17.      Rival contentions now fall for determination:

18.      The suit is 9led is by the partnership 9rm of Swati Builders

through its partner Manish Mutha against Harshad Balu Gawde,

who is the son of the deceased Balu Gawde and Gorakh Dyandeo

Sable, who was a partner of the partnership 9rm and had retired on

17th October, 2011. It is not in dispute that the development rights

in respect of the suit properties were acquired in the year 2002 in

the name of the partnership 9rm i.e. Swati Builders. Though it is

sought to be contended that the suit properties were acquired in

the name of the partnership 9rm for the sake of convenience, the

registered development agreements as well as the PoA have been

executed in favour of the partnership 9rm. The registered

indentures executed on 15th July, 2002, 23rd July, 2003 and 10th

September, 2003 were executed when the plainti? 9rm comprised



sa_mandawgad                    11 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


of only two partners i.e. Balu Gawde and Gorakh Sable and hence,

the PoA were executed in favour of Balu Gawde and Gorakh Sable

in their capacity as partners. Having admitted that on 17 th October,

2011, Gorakh Sable had retired, there is no right demonstrated by

Gorakh Sable in respect of the partnership’s assets. Further

defendant no.1 is the son of Bala Gawde, who was a partner of the

9rm and had expired on 18th February, 2021. The defendant no.1

was never inducted as a partner of the Plainti? 9rm.

19.      Right from the year 2002-2003, the registered development

agreements and the PoA stand in the name of the Plainti? 9rm and

upon the reconstitution of a partnership 9rm, Manish Mutha and

Pravin Chhajed has been inducted on 17th October, 2011 and after

the death of Balu Gawde on 18 th February, 2011, Manish Mutha,

Pravin Chhajed and Shaym Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. continued the business of

the partnership 9rm.

20.      Defendant No.1 and 2, who are not concerned with the

partnership 9rm as the defendant No.1 was never inducted as

partner of the 9rm and defendant No.2 has retired from

partnership 9rm in the year 2011, have executed a registered sale

deed on 5th February, 2022 as partners of Swati Builders. Perusal of

the conveyance deed indicates that reference is made to the



sa_mandawgad                  12 of 19
                                                44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


development agreements executed in the year 2002-2003 and the

consideration paid in the year 2002 to the original owners. The

conveyance deed con9rms that the original owners have executed

the documents on 17th July, 2002, 23rd July, 2003, 10th September,

2003 and 17th July, 2002, and that the possession of the entire

properties have been handed over by the original owners under the

indenture of 2002-2003 and continued to be in possession of the

defendants. The conveyance deed has been signed by Harshad

Gawde as partner of the partnership 9rm and by Gorakh Sable as

party of one part and by Gorakh Sable as the PoA holder of the

original owners nos.1 to 20. To the conveyance deed is annexed the

development agreements of the year 2003. It is therefore clear

from the conveyance deed executed on 5th May, 2022, that the

same is in fact recon9rmation of the sale transactions of the year

2002-2003 and have been executed by the defendants as partners

of Swati Builders and by the Defendant No.2 as the POA holder of

the original owners which PoA was executed in favour of the

Defendant No.2 in the year 2002. The irrevocable PoA executed in

favour of Bala Gawde and Defendant No.2 was in their capacity as

the partners of Plainti? 9rm-Swati Builders and could not be

utilized by defendant No.2 after having retired from the



sa_mandawgad                13 of 19
                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


partnership 9rm in the year 2011.

21.      The defendants constituted a new partnership 9rm on 23 rd

July, 2021 of the same name i.e. Swati Builders and have attempted

to create a title in favour of the defendants by executing sale deed

of 5th May, 2022. The reconstituted partnership deed on 23 rd July,

2021 has been entered into between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as

well as the Balu Gawde, whereas Balu Gawde had already expired

on 18th February, 2021. During the submissions, there is no

explanation tendered as to how the 9rm could have been

reconstituted on 23rd July, 2021 with deceased person as a partner

of the 9rm. It is evident that a prima facie attempt has been made

to utilize the name of Balu Gawde, who was a partner of the 9rm

till he expired on 18th February, 2021.

22.      The Trial Court has rightly noted that the indentures which

was executed in the year 2002-2003 were in the name of Plainti?

9rm Swati Builders, with which the defendant No.1 had no concern

as he was never inducted as partner of the 9rm and insofar as the

defendant no.2 is concerned, he had already retired in the year

2011. In event the defendant No.1 claimed any right by reason of

being a legal heir of Balu Gawde an appropriate demand could have

been made. However, the defendants have adopted a dubious



sa_mandawgad                   14 of 19
                                                      44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


method of reconstitution of the partnership 9rm of Swati Builders

by including the deceased Balu Gawde as the partner of the 9rm

and subsequently executing the sale deed of 5th May, 2022.

23.      As no right accrued to the defendants to execute sale deed

on behalf of the partnership 9rm, the suit was rightly 9led by the

plainti? seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed of 5 th

May, 2022 is null and void.

24.      The contention that the original owners were not impleaded

as parties to the suit was not raised before the Trial Court. That

apart, perusal of the deed of conveyance would indicate that the

defendant no.2 has executed the sale deed by utilizing the PoA of

the year 2002 which was executed in favour of the original owners

as partners of the Swati Builders. The deed of conveyance dated 5 th

May, 2022 has not been executed by the original owners but by the

defendant No.2 as the constituted attorney of the original owners.

The suit is presently at the exhibit 5 stage and it can always be

amended to implead the original owners as party to the original

proceedings, if required.

25.      By exhibit 5 application, the relief sought was to restrain the

Defendants from creating any third party rights in the suit

properties, as the conveyance deed have been executed on 5 th May,


sa_mandawgad                    15 of 19
                                                  44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


2022, and from restraining the Defendants from entering into the

suit properties. Prima facie, the development agreements as well as

the PoA executed in the year 2002-2003 demonstrates ownership

rights in favour of the Plainti? 9rm. There is no cloud which is

raised over the title of the Plainti? 9rm as the documents of 2002-

2003 have been admitted by the Defendants in the written

statement and it is also admitted that the documents have been

executed in the name of Swati Builders. Similarly, there can be no

challenge to the admission of incoming partners at the instance of

Defendants, who are not the partners of the partnership 9rm.

26.      On the aspect of the possession, the documents produced by

the Defendants to demonstrate their possession were the

photographs. The photographs on record, which are from the inside

and outer portion of subject property, are by itself insu<cient to

come a 9nding that the Defendants are in possession of the suit

property. The development-cum-sale agreements contained a

recital that the possession has been handed over to the Plainti?

9rm. The Defendant No.2 had retired from the partnership 9rm in

the year 2011 and could not be said to be in possession of the suit

property. Insofar as the Defendant no.1 is concerned, he was never

inducted in the partnership 9rm. It is an admitted position that the



sa_mandawgad                  16 of 19
                                                       44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


suit properties are vacant land in which case the possession would

follow title and the development agreements which have been

executed in the year 2002-2003 prima facie indicates the title in

favour of the plainti? 9rm.

27.      The Trial Court has rightly noted that the sale deed of 5 th May,

2022 refers to the defendants as partners of the partnership 9rm

and there are no documents produced on record to demonstrate

that the defendants were partners of the plainti? 9rm. It has also

rightly noted that the suit properties were purchased in the name

of the partnership 9rm and the same properties are sought to be

shown as being purchased under the conveyance deed of 2022 on

the basis of the PoA executed in the year 2002 by the original

owners in favour of Swati Builders. It also rightly noted that if the

case of the Defendants is that the suit properties are the individual

properties of the partners, then there was no necessity of

reconstitution of the 9rm in the year 2021.

28.      For the purpose of grant of the injunctive relief of the

defendants, it was necessary for the plainti? 9rm to demonstrate a

prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and

injury. The indenture of the year 2003-2003 would prima facie

indicate the development agreement being executed by the



sa_mandawgad                     17 of 19
                                                 44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


original owners in favour of the plainti? 9rm. Upon retirement of

the Defendant No.2 in the year 2011, there was no right remaining

in the Defendant no.2 in the partnership’s assets. The Defendant

no.2 after having retired from the 9rm in the year 2011 had not

instituted any proceedings claiming to be continuing as partner of

the 9rm and seeking any reliefs in respect of the partnership’s

assets or share in the pro9ts. After lapse of almost 10 years, the

Defendant no.2 along with Defendant no.1 have reconstituted a

partnership deed in the same name and have created an indenture

styled as “conveyance deed” which is executed by the Defendants

as partners of the partnership 9rm of Swati Builders mis-utilizing

the PoA of the year 2003. Prima facie, the document of 5th May,

2022 cannot create any ownership rights in favour of the purported

reconstituted partnership 9rm of Swati Builders and or in favour of

the defendants. The Plainti? has prima facie proved its ownership

rights in the suit properties by virtue of registered documents of

2003-2003.

29.      Insofar as the possession is concerned, there is nothing

produced on record to demonstrate the defendants’ possession

over the suit property apart from the photographs. The recitals in

the development agreements show that the possession was



sa_mandawgad                  18 of 19
                                                                                   44 AO 998-2023(f).doc


                             handed over to the plainti? 9rm and being a vacant land possession

                             follows title. Insofar as the balance of convenience is concerned,

                             till the purported reconstitution of the partnership 9rm in the year

                             2021, neither the defendant No.1 nor the defendant No.2 were

                             partners of the partnership 9rm. The suit property which was

                             purchased in the name of the partnership 9rm was sought to be

                             fraudulently conveyed in favour of the reconstituted 9rm. The

                             documents of the year 2003-2003 in favour of the Plainti? 9rm and

                             the admission of the induction of the partners of the Plainti? 9rm

                             in the year 2011 tilts the balance of convenience in favour of the

                             plainti? 9rm. In event, the Defendants, who prima facie do not

                             have any semblance of right in the suit property are not restrained

                             from interfering in the plainti?’s possession, irreparable injury

                             would be caused to the Plainti? as it would not be entitled to deal

                             with its own property.

                             30.      In light of the above, the Trial Court has rightly exercised the

                             discretion and there is no warrant for interference with the order

                             of the Trial Court. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and stands

                             dismissed.


                                                                         [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




                             sa_mandawgad                     19 of 19
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/07/2026 14:41:36