Court grants possession of flat to plaintiff, defers decision on compensations. Defendants restrained from creating third-party rights.

The Court granted the plaintiff's request for possession of the suit flat, directing the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession within four weeks. The Court deferred the decision on other reliefs, including compensation, to the stage of the hearing of the suit. The defendants were restrained from creating any third-party rights in respect of the suit flat until they complied with the order. The Court found that the defendants' plea of jurisdiction was not bona fide and was barred by constructive res judicata. The plaintiff's right to possession was affirmed based on the valid Will and previous judicial determinations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court
2. Plaintiff's right to possession of the suit flat
3. Validity and effect of the Will dated 4th January 1968
4. Defendants' claim of adverse possession or tenancy
5. Award of compensation and other monetary reliefs

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The defendants raised an issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asserting that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court noted that the plaintiff had previously filed a dispute before the Maharashtra Co-operative Court, where the defendants argued that only a Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant relief. The Co-operative Court accepted this plea, leading to the dispute being transferred to the Civil Court. The Court concluded that the plea of jurisdiction now raised by the defendants was not bona fide and was barred by constructive res judicata, as it had already been decided that the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff's Right to Possession of the Suit Flat:
The plaintiff sought possession of the flat based on a Will executed by his grandmother, Smt. Shamibai Issardas Punwani. The Court found that the Co-operative Court had previously determined that the Will dated 4th January 1968 amounted to a nomination under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the plaintiff was duly nominated to succeed to the shares and the flat. This decision was upheld by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the flat, as the defendants had no valid claim to it.

3. Validity and Effect of the Will Dated 4th January 1968:
The Will bequeathed the suit flat to the plaintiff, granting life interest to her late husband. The Co-operative Court and the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court both recognized the Will as a valid document that amounted to a nomination under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court noted that the defendants did not challenge the Letters of Administration granted to the plaintiff, which confirmed the validity of the Will. Therefore, the Will was held to be valid and enforceable.

4. Defendants' Claim of Adverse Possession or Tenancy:
The defendants claimed ownership of the suit flat by adverse possession and also asserted tenancy or gratuitous licensee status. The Court found these claims to be contradictory and unsupported by evidence. The defendants had previously claimed to be the landlord of the flat in earlier proceedings, which was inconsistent with their current claims. The Court held that the defendants' plea of adverse possession or tenancy was not bona fide and was barred by constructive res judicata.

5. Award of Compensation and Other Monetary Reliefs:
The plaintiff sought various monetary reliefs, including compensation for the period during which he was deprived of possession of the flat. The Court noted that these claims would be considered at the stage of the hearing of the suit. The Court granted the plaintiff's request for possession of the flat but deferred the decision on monetary reliefs to a later stage.

Conclusion:
The Court granted the plaintiff's request for possession of the suit flat, directing the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession within four weeks. The Court deferred the decision on other reliefs, including compensation, to the stage of the hearing of the suit. The defendants were restrained from creating any third-party rights in respect of the suit flat until they complied with the order. The Court found that the defendants' plea of jurisdiction was not bona fide and was barred by constructive res judicata. The plaintiff's right to possession was affirmed based on the valid Will and previous judicial determinations.

---