[ad_1]
MUMBAI: Around 27 years after a Hong Kong resident filed a suit seeking possession of two flats in Malabar Hill, the city civil court has directed his younger brother to hand over their possession to him.
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
The court last week asked Hotumal Savalani and his family to vacate the flats in Sangeet Sarita building on Warden Road and handover the possession to elder brother, Gordhan Savalani within a month.
Gordhan Savalani and his wife Kiran had claimed that they purchased the flats for ₹1.90 lakh each in March 1979.
It was claimed that Gordhan Savalani was settled in Hong Kong in 1969 for business. As the building was under construction, the possession was received in 1984. Between 1984 and 1989, whenever Gordhan’s family visited India they resided in the said flats.
In 1989, Hotumal Savalani got married to Rachana and Gordhan Savalani again left for Hong Kong. Gordhan Savalani claimed that he had suffered a heart attack and suffered losses in business due to which he could come back to India only in 1995. He alleged that when he went to their house, his younger brother refused to let them in. Following this, Gordhan Savalani filed a complaint with the Gamdevi police. In November 1995, he filed suit against his brother.
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
Hotumal Savalani, on the other hand, claimed that he had left for Hong Kong in 1962. He claimed that his elder brother was without a job for some period and requested him for shelter. He claimed that considering their relations he had allowed Gordhan Savalani to work with him.
Besides, Hotumal Savalani claimed that he had given money to his brother to purchase the two flats in Mumbai. He, however, claimed that Gordhan Savalani bought the flats in the name of him and his wife.
The court,however, held that the defence put forth by the younger brother was unbelievable as he could not produce any evidence regarding the transfer of money to his elder brother to purchase these flats.
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
{{^userSubscribed}}
{{/userSubscribed}}
“The defendant did not take any action against the plaintiff in respect of alleged fraud till the year 1995 i.e., for more than 15 years. Mere sweeping allegations regarding the fraud are not sufficient to hold the plaintiff guilty of fraud. The defendants have not brought on record as to what inquiry was made by him regarding the transactions in question,” the court observed.
“A prudent man will never believe that the defendant paid the plaintiff for two flats in the city like Mumbai and did not make any inquiry or verify the documents of transaction for 15 years,” the court said in its order.
[ad_2]
Source link