Bombay High Court

PRADEEP RIKHABCHAND JAINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. COMMISSIONER AND ORS

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: BHARATI DANGRE MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed; the court will not order the bank to hand over possession or title documents without proof of a mortgage, and the petitioner must pursue other appropriate remedies.

Summary

The petitioner, Pradeep Rikhabchand Jain, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra and the cooperative bank to hand over possession of his house and the original title documents, and to pay compensation for the delay. The petition relied on an earlier attachment order by the bank in 2009, which had placed the property under the custody of tenants Subhash and Pritish Gadiya, and on a settled dispute in a cooperative court case (CC/T/907 of 2005) where a no‑due certificate was issued. The court noted that the Gadiyas were tenants of the petitioner and that the attachment merely continued their possession as custodians, and that the civil suit filed by the Gadiyas (Suit No. 712 of 2011) had been dismissed, leaving no legal bar to the petitioner’s claim of possession. However, the court held it could not order the bank to produce title documents without proof of a mortgage and therefore could not grant the writ of mandamus. It disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies and to submit any proof of mortgage for the bank to return the documents.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and the original title documents.
Whether the cooperative bank is liable to pay compensation for failure to hand over possession and title documents.
Whether the original title documents are in the possession of the bank and should be returned.

Subjects

possession
mandamus
cooperative bank
attachment order
title documents
compensation
tenancy
civil suit

Judgment

1/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt

Salgaonkar

MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.07.08 19:10:15
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11846 OF 2025

Pradeep Rikhabchand Jain .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through .. Respondents
Commissioner for Co-Operation and
Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Maharashtra State & Ors.

…

Mr.Nikhil Mengde (through VC) with Mr.Siddhesh Dalvi and
Mr.Rahul Shirgavkar for the Petitioner.

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Additional G.P. with Smt.Savita A. Prabhune,
A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.

Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s.V. Deshpande & Co. for the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 07th JULY, 2026
...

P.C:-

1. The Petitioner seek the following reliefs :-

“(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the Writ of
Mandamus and direct the Respondent No.1, 2 and/or 3 to handover
the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. House
No. 1200, constructed on piece and parcel of land admeasuring
about 258 Sq. Yards, situated at Near Hanuman Mandir, Ghansoli,
Thane Belapur Road, Taluka and District Thane, along with original
title documents to the Petitioner.
2/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt

(c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.
2 and 3 to pay compensation on account of their failure to hand
over possession of the suit property, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per
day from 01.12.2023 till the date of handing over of possession and
original title documents, in accordance with Reserve Bank of India
guidelines.

(d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.
2 and 3 to pay the license fee of Rs. 15,000/- per month from
January 2012 till handing over possession of the suit property to
the Petitioner.”

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, who
has marked his appearance on-line, and the learned counsel
representing Respondent Nos.2 and 3, our attention is invited
to the order passed by the Judge, Co-Operative Court, Thane in
Case No. CC/T/907 of 2005 between the Thane Janata
Sahakari Bank Ltd. and M/s PVC Plastics (Proprietorship of
Rikabchand Jain) and the order discloses that the dispute is
disposed of in the wake of the pursis and an application Gled
before the Court and, it stood withdrawn by the disputant.
It is submitted before us by the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the dispute having
been amicably settled, a ‘No-due CertiGcate’ is also issued to
the proprietor/borrower.

3. The Petition now seek a relief against Respondent Nos.2
and 3 to the effect that he should be put back in possession of
the suit property and it also seek return of the original title
documents. Relief is also sought for payment of compensation,
if the premises are not handed over alongwith the original title
documents.
It is worth to note that on the date, when the subject
property was attached in terms of the Award dated
3/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt

18/06/2006 from the Co-Operative Court, Thane in favour of
Thane Janata Sahakari Bank and the demand notices were
issued, the subject property belonging to Mr.Pradeep
Rikhabchand Jain was held to be liable for attachment and
sold in execution of the Recovery CertiGcate.
This is the same subject property, which was also the
subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 2011. The
description of the property involved is as below :-
“Immovable Property being House No.1200, Near
Hanuman Mandir, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, belonging to
Mr.Pradeep Rikabchand Jain”

4. When the Attachment Order was executed, the Special
Recovery OfGcer of the Respondent No.3-Bank, directed as
below :-
“3. The possession of the attached immovable
properties is kept with Mr.Subhash Chand Gadiya &
Mr.Pritesh Subhash Gadiya, as a custodian of the
undersigned. They should take proper care of attached
immovable property.”

This order being passed on 27/01/2009, indicates that the
possession of the immovable property is kept with Mr.Subhash
Chand Gadiya and Mr.Pritesh Subhash Gadiya and it is the
speciGc contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Bank that they were already in possession of the said property
and this property was never mortgaged with the Bank.

5. A copy of the plaint Gled in Regular Civil Suit No.712 of
2011 is placed before us, which sought a relief of declaration
and injunction, the plaintiffs in the said suit being Shri
Subhash Kesharchand Gadiya and Shri Pritish Subhash
4/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt

Gadiya and the subject matter is the very same property and
the plaintiffs pleaded that they were put in possession of the
said property by Shri Rikabchand Jain and Mrs.Padmavati
Jain as a monthly tenant, with other stipulations speciGcally
set out.
The plaint speciGcally pleaded that since inception of
their tenancy, they are in possession and are regularly paying
the monthly rent and in the backdrop of the pleadings, the
plaint sought a relief against the defendant, Shri Pradeep
Rikabchand Jain, not to disturb their peaceful possession or
dispossess them without following a due process of law.
Admittedly, this Suit cam be to be dismissed on
06/02/2023.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that since it is the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who put Subhash Gadiya and Pritish
Gadiya in possession of the suit property, it shall be restored
back to him.
We Gnd this statement to be incorrect, as from the
pleadings in the Suit itself, it is evident that Gadiyas are
tenants of Rikabchand Jain and they were in possession of the
suit premises and what the Recovery ofGcer did, when he
passed the Attachment Order, is merely continued them to be
in possession, by designating them as custodian of the
property.
In any case, since now the Suit Gled by Gadiyas is
dismissed, there is no legal impediment for the Petitioner to
secure possession of the property, but this is a different course
of action to be followed, as we are unaware of other factual
5/5 9 WP-11846-25.odt

aspects and we, in our writ jurisdiction, cannot get into this
aspect.
For this purpose, we permit the Petitioner to adopt such
remedies which are available to him in law. However, as far as
one of the relief in the Petition to hand over the original title
documents to the Petitioner is concerned, since it is the case of
the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that this
property was never mortgaged and the title deeds are not with
the Bank, by way of abundant caution, we only say that in case
if the property is mortgaged and if the Petitioner has any proof
thereof, he shall forward it to Respondent No. 3-Bank, which
shall then ascertain whether any title deeds/original
documents are with the Bank and since the settlement is
already effected with the borrower and the Bank, the
documents shall be returned.
With the aforesaid, the Petition stands disposed of.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…