Mumbai woman gets flat after 48 years; HC court orders ₹25 lakh extra

The Bombay High Court ordered the legal heirs of the flat owner, the late R Subramaniam, to complete the transaction that began in May 1978.

MUMBAI: A Wadala resident will soon get possession of a 285-square-foot flat, around 48 years after her late husband made a partial payment for purchasing it for their daughter.

The Bombay High Court ordered the legal heirs of the flat owner, the late R Subramaniam, to complete the transaction that began in May 1978. (Bhushan Koyande/ HT Photo)

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the legal heirs of the flat owner, the late R Subramaniam, to complete the transaction that began in May 1978 and hand over possession of the flat to the legal heirs of the buyer, MK Madhavan.

Madhavan had paid ₹30,000 out of the agreed consideration of ₹50,000 for the flat in 1978. However, his legal heirs will now have to pay an additional amount of ₹25 lakh, over and above the balance consideration of ₹20,000. A single-judge bench of justice Firdosh Pooniwala ordered the payment of the additional amount due to the steep rise in property prices in the city.

“Having regard to the fact that the agreement in question was entered into between the parties in 1978 and considering the steep rise in the price of flats in Mumbai, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be served if the plaintiffs (the legal heirs of Madhavan) are directed to pay some more amount to the defendant (the legal heirs of Subramaniam),” the court said.

Justice Pooniwala added that ₹25 lakh might even be less than the market value of the property, but it would “certainly balance the equities between the parties”.

Appeal was rejected by court in 2007

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Madhavan after his suit to purchase the flat was rejected by the City Civil Court in December 2007. According to his suit, Madhavan, a resident of Mangla Goodwill Co-operative Housing Society, wanted to buy a flat for his daughter. His next-door neighbour, Subramaniam, agreed to sell his flat to him for ₹50,000 in 1978, according to his petition.

Accordingly, Madhavan stated that he paid Subramaniam an advance of ₹20,000 in May 1978, followed by an additional ₹10,000 four months later. However, he claimed that Subramaniam did not complete the transaction and hand over the flat despite repeated requests. When Madhavan sent him a written notice, Subramaniam allegedly sent him a cheque for ₹30,000, stating that he needed the flat for his own use. Following this, Subramaniam’s brother started living in the flat, the petition said.

This prompted Madhavan to approach the City Civil Court in 1982. Subramaniam contested the suit, contending that the transaction could not be completed because the purchaser failed to pay the balance amount. He later stated that since his brother was looking for accommodation, he gave him the empty flat.

Subramaniam added that in August 1981, when he met Madhavan, he told him that he was retiring soon and would move into the 285-sq-ft flat. Since both his daughters were married, he wanted to move to a smaller flat to save on expenses, and Madhavan accepted this, he claimed.

While the City Civil Court accepted Subramaniam’s contentions, the high court concluded that the contemporaneous documentary evidence showed that Madhavan’s case was “more probable”. There was no documentary evidence to support the flat owner’s claims, it added.

The high court said the letter addressed by the flat owner regarding the purchase “did not even contain a whisper of the alleged non-payment” or that his statement that he required the flat for his own use was accepted by the purchaser. The court therefore ruled in favour of Madhavan’s family, and ordered the flat owner’s legal heirs to complete the transaction and hand over the premises to them.