1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12088­12089 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10093­10094 of 2016]

Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors .. Appellants

Versus

Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors.              .. Respondents

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12090/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 15056/2016 and Contempt Petition Nos. 25­26/2018

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. As all these appeals are interconnected between the same parties

and with respect to the same properties, these are being disposed of

by this common judgment.

2

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated

23.12.2014 in F. A. No. 466 of 2010 and the order dated 04.07.2015

in Civil Application No. 1698 of 2015 in F.A.No.466 of 2016 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the

‘High Court’), the original Defendants have preferred the present

appeals.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final order

dated 10.09.2015 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 992 of

2015 the original Petitioners of the aforesaid Writ Petition have

preferred the present appeals.

4. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

That Appellant No. 1 Trust­ Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal

Jatiya  Kosh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust’)  was, registered

under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.  According to the Trust, under

a duly registered Conveyance dated 30.10.1974, the Trust acquired

9797 sq. meters of land with a charitable object of providing Housing

to  weaker  sections of the  Society.  That  the said area of  9797 sq.

meters included the Plot bearing CTS No. 97/A­5/2 of Village

Chinchavli, Malad (East), Mumbai admeasuring 2593.70 sq. meters.

According to the Trust, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation sanctioned

3

the plan of the Trust in the year 1974­75 for construction of building

A­1 to be constructed on sub­plot carved out of CTS No. 97/A­5/2 (the

disputed property).  That the building A­1 was to consume the area of

1009.70 meters equivalent to 1205 sq. yards.  That, between 1975­78,

the Trust constructed building A­1 comprising of 20 Flats each

admeasuring  built­up  area  of  588  sq. ft. and the  purchasers took

possession of the respective flat.  Thereafter, about 26 years after they

took possession, the Purchasers­Respondents herein the original

Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 4111 of 2004, inter alia, for directing the Trust

and others to execute the Conveyance of Plot No. A/1 claiming that

they were entitled to the Plot area of around 1205 sq. yards (1009.70

sq.meters).  That the original Plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs

in the Suit:

a) That it is declared that the Defendant No. 1 is bound and liable:

i) To complete the said building A/1 in accordance with the

building plans sanctioned by and in terms of the conditions

of  IOD and CC issued by the Defendant No. 2  in respect

thereof.

ii) To obtained Occupation Certificate for the said building No.

A/1.

iii) To provide supply of municipal water to the said building

4

A/1.

iv) To obtain building Completion Certificate for the said

building A/1.

v) To form co­operative housing society of the Plaintiffs.

vi) To convey the said building A/1 together with the plot of

land J/1.

b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass permanent order

directing:

i) Defendant No. 1 to obtain occupation certificate and

municipal water connection to the said building A/1.

ii) Defendant No. 1 to form co­operative housing society of the

plaintiffs.

iii) Defendant No. 1 to convey the said building together with

plot J/1 to the Co­operative Housing Society of the

Plaintiffs.

iv) Defendant No. 1 not to carry out any construction upon the

said      plot J.

v) Defendant No. 2 to cancel the permission given to the

Defendant No. 1 to carry out construction on the said plot

“J”.

vi) Defendant No. 2 not to give any further permission to

5

Defendant No. 1 to carry out any construction on the said

plot “J”.

vii) Defendant No. 2 to take necessary actions against

Defendant No. 1 for carrying out construction of

unauthorized hutments.

viii) Defendant No. 2 to take necessary actions against

Defendant No. 1 for cutting of trees.  

4.1 It was the case on behalf of the original Plaintiffs that the

Plaintiffs have paid full purchase price for purchase of their respective

flats in the said building A­1, constructed by the original Defendant

No. 1, Trust.   That, though the Trust handed over the possession of

the flats to the respective flat owners and they are put in possession

and occupation of the respective flats, the Trust have failed to obtain

occupation certificate of the said building in terms of the IOD and CC

issued by the  Corporation.  That it  was  the  case  on behalf  of the

original Plaintiffs that the original Defendant No. 1 Trust, as promoter

under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MOFA’) were bound to enter into the

agreement, as prescribed under the said Act with all such flat

purchasers for  sale  of the flats.   It  was  the  case  on behalf  of the

6

original Plaintiffs that, under the provisions of the ‘MOFA’ and,

otherwise also, it is the basic duty and responsibility of the Trust to

provide all the essential supplies and services including supply of

water, electricity and sanitary services to be enjoyed by the flat

purchasers.   It  was also the case of the original  Plaintiffs that the

Trust was bound to form the Co­operative Society of the flat

purchasers  under the ‘MOFA’,  however, though  the  Trust  collected

from each of the flat  purchasers  an amount  of  Rs.  351/­ towards

membership fee and share money of such Society, they did not form

such a Co­operative Society. It was a specific case on behalf of the

original Plaintiff that the building occupied by the plaintiffs are

consisting of ground plus four storeys and the total built­up area is

around 1205 sq. meters.  It  was the case on behalf  of  the original

Plaintiffs that, under the provisions of law, the Plaintiffs and/or the

Society to be formed by the flat purchasers are entitled to an area of

land corresponding to the built­up area of building so constructed of

such land utilizing the FSI permissible at the relevant time.  It was the

further case on behalf of the original Plaintiffs that despite the above,

the Trust original Defendant No. 1, made an attempt to carry out some

construction  just adjacent to the said building A­1 of the plaintiffs

7

which was registered by the plaintiffs even by making complaint to the

Defendant No.2, Corporation.  However, as no action was taken by the

Corporation for illegal and unauthorized construction on the plot

adjacent to building A­1, the original Plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid

Suit and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.  

4.2 The Suit was resisted to by the original Defendants.  The original

Defendant No. 1 Trust and original Defendants Nos. 3 to 17, filed the

common written statement denying the averments and allegations in

the Suit.  It was the case on behalf of the original Defendant, so stated

in the written statement that the original Defendant No. 1 and 3 to 17

are the owners of property bearing CTS Nos. 97/A­5/2, 97/A­5/4 and

97/A­5/3 total admeasuring 9797 sq. meters.  That the property was

purchased by the Trust with  intention to develop the same for the

benefit of  middle­class citizens.  The  application  was  made to the

Divisional Registrar to grant permission which was granted on

20.12.1975. That thereafter, Defendant No. 1 Trust appointed an

Architect, for the purpose of submitting plans. The plans were

submitted for construction of 14 buildings, each being ground plus

four  upper floors.   It  was further contended that the  Trust could

complete only one building, as further construction could not be done

because of the declaration of the Suit Plaint as the surplus land under

8

Urban Land Ceiling Act.  The appeal preferred by the Trust was partly

allowed in 1993 and 1998 and only 4000 sq. meters area was declared

as surplus land.   It was submitted that, therefore, the Trust has to

drop the idea of further development and it was, therefore, decided to

construct structures for only charitable purposes like Schools,

Colleges etc.   It  was further contended that the  plot is effectively

divided into three parts, first part is building occupied by the

plaintiffs, second is the School building and the third being the plot

reserved for garden.   It was further contended that FSI in respect of

the plot in which the plaintiffs’ building is situated is not fully

consumed and they are entitled to consume full  FSI by putting up

additional construction for charitable  purposes  and  only thereafter

they are ready and willing to convene the property.  It was further

contended that there is no agreement entered into with any of the flat

purchasers and that only after approval of the draft, the agreement

can be entered into. It was submitted that after compliance of all these

formalities, the original Defendant No. 1 Trust, can consider the

formation of the society.   Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the

Suit.

4.3 That the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:  

1) Does the defendant no. 2 prove that the suit is maintainable

9

in absence of notice u/section 527 of MMC Act?

2) Does plaintiff prove that he is entitled for direction to

defendant no. 1

I. To complete the building A­1 in accordance with the

building plans sanctioned by and in terms of the

condition from IOD and CC issued by the defendant

no. 2 Corporation in respect thereof?

II. To obtain occupation certificate for the building     no.

A­1.

III. To provide supply of municipal water to the building

no.­A.

IV. To obtain building completion certificate  for  building

no. ­A.

V. To form co­operative housing society of the front age.

VI. To convey building no. A­1 with the plot of land J­1 to

the purchasers.

3) Does plaintiff prove that they are entitled for the reliefs as

prayed?

4) What decree/order?

4.4 That on behalf of the plaintiffs as many as seven witnesses came

to be examined who were all flat purchasers.

10

4.5 On behalf of Defendant. one Omprakash Didwanja DW­1 came to

be examined.  Both the parties produced the documentary evidences.

That, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the

Suit as under:  

“Defendant  No.1 shall execute  and  register the  agreements in

favour of  flat purchasers as per Section 4 of  ‘MOFA’ at the cost of

plaintiffs within three months from the date of order.

Defendant No.1 shall  complete the suit building in accordance

with the  building  plans  sanctioned  as  per IOD and  CC  issued  by

Defendant No. 2 and obtain Occupation Certificate within four months

from  the  date  of order.   If defendant  no.  1 failed to  do  so  within

stipulated time, plaintiffs shall get the work done through any other

Builder of their choice and recover the cost from defendant no. 1 and

thereafter BMC shall grant Occupation Certificate to the plaintiffs.

Defendant No.1 is also directed to make the necessary

compliance for obtaining supply of municipal water to the suit

building.

Defendant  No.  2 shall  supply the  municipal  water to the  suit

building on humanitarian ground till the full compliance is made by

plaintiffs and defendant no. 1.

Defendant No. 1 is directed to form a co­operative Housing

Society of the flat purchasers of the suit building within four month

from the date of order:­

Defendant No. 1 is entitled to the balance FSI of the said plot of

land which was available to them at the time of sanction of original

plans,  which Defendant No.  1  is  entitled  to consume the  same  till

11

conveyance is registered.

Defendant No. 1 shall convey the title and execute documents in

favour of the society in respect of the suit building and land to the

extent of suit building as shown in the plans within six months from

the date of the order, failing which plaintiffs shall be entitled to apply

before the Competent Authority u/section 5A for unilateral

conveyance in their favour.

Decree be drawn accordingly.”

5. That feeling  aggrieved and dissatisfied  with  the judgment  and

decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the Suit No. 4111 of 2004,

the original Defendants (except for Defendant No. 2 Corporation)

preferred the First Appeal No. 466 of 2010 before the High Court. At

this stage, it is required to be noted that during the pendency of the

Suit, the Society of the flat purchasers was registered in the name of

Agrasen Co­operative Housing Society Ltd. under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960.  Thereafter, during the

First Appeal preferred by the original Defendants, in the year 2014,

the Society initiated proceedings before Divisional Registrar, Co­

operative Societies for execution of Conveyance Deed. That, thereafter,

the High Court dismissed the Appeal No. 466 of 2010 by judgment

and order dated 04.12.2014.   The High Court specifically held that a

Deed of Conveyance of the  land to the extent of  the building to be

12

executed within nine months.

5.1 It appears that in the proceedings before the Divisional Registrar

initiated by the Society, the Trust filed a reply before the Divisional

Register on 10.12.2014 pointing out that the Respondents herein the

original Plaintiffs were entitled to the Conveyance of land admeasuring

1009 sq.  meters only and  not 2593.70 sq.  meters as claimed by

original Plaintiffs.   That, thereafter, the High Court, on an oral

application of the Respondents herein by way of “Note for speaking to

the  Minutes” clarified that the  words “2700  sq. feet” appearing in

paragraph 8 of the judgment and order dated 04.12.2014 should be

read as “2700 sq. meters”.  It appears that as the objection was raised

by the Trust before the Divisional Registrar that the Respondents are

entitled to Conveyance of land admeasuring 1009 sq. meters only and

not 2593.70 sq. meters as alleged and prayed, and to get over the said

objection of the Appellants before the Divisional Registrar, the

Respondents­original Plaintiffs again made an oral application by way

of “Note for speaking to the  Minutes” alleging that though in the

paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment and order dated 04.12.2014, it

was mentioned that the Respondents were entitled to get the Deed of

Conveyance executed  in respect  of the area equivalent to  2700 sq.

meters, but in the operative part,  it was mentioned that Conveyance

13

in respect  of the land only to the  extent  of  plot  be  executed  and,

therefore, the order deserves to be corrected by way of mentioning the

area of 2700 sq. meters.  That by the impugned order, the High Court

virtually modified its earlier order dated 04.12.2014 and directed the

execution of the deed of  Conveyance of the land to the extent of

building i.e. 2700 sq. meters.  It appears that on the basis of the order

dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court directing to execute the

Conveyance of the land  to the  extent  of the  building i.e.  2700 sq.

meters, vide order dated 13.01.2015, the Divisional Registrar passed

an order granting deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring

2593.70 sq. meters.  

5.2 It appears that, thereafter, the Appellant herein, the Trust and

other filed Civil Application No. 1698 of 2015 in F.A. No. 466 of 2010,

praying for modification of the direction to execute the deed of

Conveyance to the extent of  2700 sq.  meters.  Simultaneously,  the

Petitioner  also filed  Writ  Petition  No.  992 of  2015,  challenging the

order passed by the Divisional Registrar granting the deemed

Conveyance.

5.3 That by impugned order the High Court has dismissed the Civil

Application No. 1698 of 2015 in First Appeal No. 466 of 2010.

14

However, by dismissing the  Civil Application, the  High  Court has

further clarified that the appellants shall be entitled to consume the

balance FSI of plot of the land.  That by the impugned order, the High

Court has also dismissed the Writ Petition No. 992 of 2015 and has

confirmed the order of deemed Conveyance for the area admeasuring

2593.70 sq. meters.   

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

passed by the High Court below “Note for speaking to the Minutes” in

First  Appeal  No.  466 of  2010 as  well  as the  order  passed  in  Civil

Application No. 1698 of  2015  in First Appeal No. 466 of 2010, the

original Defendants­Appellants have preferred the present SLP (Civil)

Nos. 10093­94 of 2016.   Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

order  passed by  the  High Court in  Writ  Petition No.992/2015, the

original Petitioners have preferred the SLP (C) Nos. 15056 of 2016.   

7. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Shyam

Divan, learned Senior Advocate have appeared on behalf of the

respective  Appellants  in  respective  Appeals  and Shri  Neeraj  Kishan

Kaul, learned Senior Advocate, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior

Advocate and Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate have appeared

on behalf of the contesting Respondents­original Plaintiffs.  Shri Pallav

15

Shishodia, learned senior counsel has also appeared on behalf of the

Respondent, Municipal Corporation.  

8. Shri C. A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf  of  the Appellants­original Private Defendants has vehemently

submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable at law.   

8.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel that the impugned

order dated 23.12.2014 passed in F.A. No. 466 of 2010 on the “Note

for speaking to the Minutes” is wholly unsustainable under the law

and is wholly without jurisdiction.

8.2 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel that the impugned

order below “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, is, as such, can be

said to be wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as such order could

not have been passed on the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.  It is

vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that an application for

“Note for speaking to the Minutes” is required to be entertained only

for the limited purposes of correcting the typographical error or an

error through oversight, which may have crept in while transcribing

the original order.   It is submitted that as such, the impugned order

on the “Note for speaking to the  Minutes”   is virtually  modifying

and/or reviewing the earlier order passed in First Appeal and,

16

therefore, such an order could not   have been passed by the High

Court on an  application for “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.  It is

submitted that while passing the impugned order, the High Court has

given further directions and, thereby, has virtually modified the

original order.  It is submitted that such a course was not open to the

High Court while deciding the said “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.

It is submitted that, therefore, the impugned order on “Note for

speaking to the Minutes” is not sustainable at law.  In support of his

above submissions, the learned  Senior  Advocate  has  heavily relied

upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of  Kotak

Mahindra Bank Ltd.  Vs.  Official  Liquidator of  M/s.  Gujrat  BD

Luggage Ltd. 2012 SCC Online Gujrat 4339 as well as the decision

of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of the

Artson Engineering  Ltd.  Vs. Indian Oil  Corporation Ltd.  2015

SCC Online Bombay 39.  

8.3 It is further submitted by  learned counsel that  such an order

passed on “Note for speaking to the Minutes” is virtually modifying its

earlier judgment and order in Frist Appeal.   It is submitted that as

such, while at the time of deciding and disposing of the First Appeal, a

specific submission was made on behalf of the parties with respect to

17

the area for which the Deed of Conveyance to be executed and the

submission on behalf of the respective parties were noted and

thereafter the High Court dismissed the appeal without any specific

reference whether the Deed of Conveyance to be executed for the total

area of 2700 sq. meters.   It is submitted that, therefore, even if an

independent review application would have been preferred in that case

also such an order could not have been passed, which is passed as

such on the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, which is not

sustainable as submitted hereinabove.

8.4 It is further submitted by learned counsel that even otherwise the

impugned order could not have been passed by the High Court and

that too in the appeal preferred by the appellants more particularly

when the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Appellants­

original Private Defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree

passed the learned Trial Court.  It is vehemently submitted that by the

impugned order, as such the High Court has granted the relief which

as such was not specifically granted by the learned Trial Court while

decreeing the Suit preferred by the original Plaintiffs.  It is submitted

that when against  the  judgment and decree passed by  the  learned

Trial Court, only the original Private Defendants preferred the appeal

and there was neither any cross objection preferred by the original

18

Plaintiffs nor any appeal preferred by the original Plaintiffs, the High

Court could not have passed such order (apart from the fact passing

the order on “Note for speaking to the Minutes”), when the High Court

dismissed the appeal.  It is submitted that at the most the High Court

can/could have dismissed the appeal  confirming the  judgment and

decree passed by the  learned Trial  Court.   It is  submitted,  that by

dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellants­original Private

Defendants and when neither there was any cross objection nor any

appeal preferred by the original Plaintiffs, the High Court could not

have passed any order beyond the judgment and decree passed by the

learned Trial Court.   It is submitted that by passing the impugned

order as such the High Court has granted the relief and issued

directions which is beyond the judgment and decree passed by the

learned Trial Court.   It is submitted that, therefore, thereafter when

the appellants preferred the application to recall the order passed on

“Note for speaking to the  Minutes”, the  High Court  ought to  have

recalled such order.   It is submitted that, however, the High Court

has mechanically rejected the review application.  It is submitted that,

therefore, the impugned orders passed on “Note for speaking to the

Minutes”, and the order passed in review application deserves to be

quashed and set aside.  

19

8.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even otherwise

the High Court has committed grave error in passing the impugned

order on “Note for speaking to the Minutes” directing the

Appellants/original Defendants to execute the Deed of Conveyance of

the land to the extent of building i.e. 2700 sq. meters.  It is submitted

that while passing the impugned order and directing the appellants

the original Defendant No. 1 to execute the Deed of Conveyance of the

land to the extent of the building i.e. 2700 sq. meters, the High Court

has not at all considered the fact that as such the built up area of the

building (A­1), even as per the original Plaintiff was admeasuring 1009

sq. meters (1205 sq. yards).

8.6 It is further  submitted that  as such the  built­up  area  of the

building A­1 was admeasuring 1009 sq. meters even as per the Plan

approved and the Suit was filed only to execute the Deed of

Conveyance to the extent of area of the building.  It is submitted that,

therefore, also the High Court has committed grave error in directing

to execute the Deed of Conveyance to the extent of building i.e. 2700

sq. meters.  

8.7    It is submitted by learned counsel that even otherwise it is not

appreciable how the High Court has arrived at the figure of 2700 sq.

20

meters.   It is submitted that even that was not the case on behalf of

the plaintiffs.  

8.8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even the

averments made in the Plaint, the Plaintiffs so stated in paragraph 18,

that the total built­up area of building of A­1 is around 1205 sq. yards

(wrongly stated as 1205 sq. meters).  It is submitted that in paragraph

18 the Plaintiffs specifically stated and it was the specific case that

original Plaintiffs and/or the Society to be formed by the flat

purchasers are entitled to an area of land corresponding to the built­

up area of the building so constructed on such land utilizing the FSI

permissible at the relevant time.   It is submitted that it was

specifically stated in paragraph 18 in the Plaint that the Plaintiffs are

entitled to a minimum plot area of around 1205 sq. yards (wrongly

stated as 1205 sq.  meters) or thereabout.   It is submitted that,

therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to

execute the Deed of Conveyance to the extent of 2700 sq. meters is

beyond even  the  case  on behalf  of the  Plaintiffs  so  pleaded  in  the

Plaint.

8.9 Taking us to the reply filed on behalf of the Municipal

Corporation, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel that even

21

according to the Corporation as per approved layout plan, CTS No.

97/A­5/2 on which building A­1 on the total area of 1009 sq.meters

was constructed was total  measuring 2593.70 sq.  meters.   It is

submitted, therefore, in any case, how the High Court has arrived at

the figure of 2700 sq. meters is not at all appreciable.  It is submitted

that  when the entire plot bearing  CTS  No. 97/A­5/2, as per the

approved layout plan was of 2593.70 sq. meters on which building A­1

was constructed admeasuring 1009 sq. meters, there is no question of

executing the Deed of Conveyance more than that more particularly

2700 sq.  meters as  directed  by the  High  Court  while  passing the

impugned order on “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.

8.10 It is  further submitted by the learned counsel that even while

passing the  decree and  allowing the  Suit, the learned  Trial  Court

specifically directed the original Defendant No. 1 to convey the title

and execute documents in favour of the Society in respect of the Suit

building and the land to the extent of Suit building as shown in the

Plans i.e. 1009 sq. meters.  It is submitted, therefore, while dismissing

the appeal preferred by the Appellants, the High Court could not have

passed any order beyond the decree passed by the learned Trial Court,

more particularly, when the original Plaintiffs neither filed any cross

objection nor preferred any appeal.

22

8.11 It is further submitted by learned counsel that even the original

Private Defendants used the FSI corresponding to the built­up area of

the building A­1 i.e.  1009 sq.  meters.  It is  further submitted that

what was sold/sought to be conveyed to the original

Plaintiffs/Occupiers was the building A­1 admeasuring 1009 sq.

meters only.   It is submitted, therefore, that they could  not  have

sought any relief beyond the area admeasuring 1009 sq. meters.  It is

submitted, therefore, as such they rightly averred in the Plaint that

they are entitled to the Deed of Conveyance to the extent of the land of

the building i.e. 1009 sq. meters.  It is submitted, therefore, even the

learned Trial Court also while passing the Decree directed to execute

the Deed of Conveyance accordingly.

8.12 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants have

taken  us to the layout  plans  and had  submitted that  on the  plot

bearing CTS  No. 97/A­5/2 other three buildings  were also to be

constructed over and above building A­1, however, during the

pendency of litigation under the  Urban Land Ceiling Act, further

construction was not made.   It is  submitted that, therefore,  at the

most original Plaintiff  shall  be entitled for execution of the Deed of

Conveyance to the extent of 1009 sq. meters only, that is the land on

23

which building A­1 was constructed which was sold to the original

Plaintiffs and its Members.

8.13 Making the above submission  made by Shri  C.A. Sundaram,

learned  Senior  Advocate appearing on  behalf of the  Appellant  has

requested to allow present Appeals and quash and set aside the

impugned orders passed by the High Court.

9. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of the  Appellants in  Civil  Appeals  arising  out  of the  SLP(Civil)  No.

15056 of 2016 has reiterated what was submitted by Shri Sundaram,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants in Civil

Appeals arising  out of  SLP (Civil)  Nos.10093­94  of 2016.  He  has

further  submitted  that  as  such  the  order  passed by  the  Divisional

Registrar directing of deemed Conveyance of the land to the extent of

2593.70 sq. meters is as such based upon and relying upon the order

passed by the High Court below the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”

(the impugned order before this Court).  It is submitted that, therefore,

once the impugned order passed by the High Court passed below the

“Note for speaking to the Minutes” is set aside, as prayed for by the

Appellants, the order passed by the Divisional Registrar confirmed by

the  High Court  would  automatically  go.   It is  submitted  that  even

24

otherwise, even  on  merits  also the  order  passed  by the  Divisional

Registrar of deemed Conveyance of the land to the extent of 2593.70

sq. meters is not sustainable and is actually illegal.   It is submitted

that, therefore, the High Court ought to have allowed the writ petition

preferred by the appellants.

9.1  Making above submission it is requested to allow the present

appeals and quash and set aside the order passed by the High Court

dismissing the Writ Petition confirming the order of deemed

Conveyance of the land to the extent of 2593.70 sq. meters passed by

the Divisional Registrar.   

10. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan

Kaul, learned Senior Advocate, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior

Advocate and Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the original Plaintiffs.   

10.1 Learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the original Plaintiffs

have vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, no error has been committed by the High Court in passing the

impugned order on “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.   It is

vehemently submitted  by learned counsel appearing on  behalf the

original Plaintiffs that when it was pointed out to the High Court that

25

while disposing of the appeal, though there was specific observation in

paragraphs 8 and 9 that the Deed of Conveyance is to be executed for

2700 sq. meters, while passing the operative portion of the order there

was no specific reference to the area of the land and, therefore, when

the same was pointed out by submitting “Note  for  speaking to  the

Minutes”, the same is rightly corrected by the High Court by passing

the impugned order.  It is submitted that the impugned order on the

“Note for speaking to the Minutes”, as such can neither be said to be

either wholly without jurisdiction as contended on behalf of the

Appellants  nor it can  be said to be an order reviewing/modifying

earlier order passed in First Appeal.

10.2 It is  vehemently  submitted by  learned counsel for the original

Plaintiffs that  even in the  prayer clause in the  Suit, in  paragraph

37(vi), it was prayed to direct the original Defendant No. 1 to convey

the said building A­1 together with the plot of land J­1.   It is

submitted that the building A­1 might have been constructed on the

land admeasuring 1009 sq.  meters, however, the entire plot was

admeasuring 2593.70 sq. meters.  It is submitted that, therefore, the

Suit was for 2593.70 sq. meters of land.  It is submitted that even the

Defendants’ witness­DW­1­ Omprakash Didwanja in his cross­

examination specifically admitted that the Suit building has been

26

constructed on the plot of land admeasuring 2573.31 sq. meters. It is

submitted that, therefore, the High Court has not committed any error

in  directing the  Appellant­original  Defendant  No.  1, to  execute the

deed of Conveyance of the land to the extent of the plot area.

However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Plaintiffs are  not in a  position to satisfy  how  the  High  Court  has

arrived at the figure of  2700 sq.  meters  of the land  for  which  the

Defendant No. 1 is directed to execute the Deed of Conveyance.  It is

submitted that, in any case, the original Defendant No. 1 is required to

execute the Deed of Conveyance of the land total admeasuring

2593.70 sq. meters which is the area of the plot.

10.3 It is further  submitted  by learned  counsel that,  as  such, the

original  Defendants  constructed the  building  A­1 only  and  it is  an

admitted position that, thereafter, no construction has been made on

the remaining land of the plot.  It is submitted that even the original

Defendant  No.  1  used the  FSI  of the total area  of the  plot.   It is

submitted that, therefore, the original Defendant No. 1 has to execute

the Deed of Conveyance of the land to the extent of at least 2593.31

sq. meters.  It is submitted that even the Divisional Registrar also, not

only on the basis of the order passed by the High Court impugned in

the  present appeals, even  on considering the  materials on record,

27

passed an order of deemed Conveyance of the land to the extent of

2593.31 sq. meters.   

10.4 Making above  submissions and relying  upon  the layout  plans

sanctioned by the Corporation, it is requested to dismiss the present

appeals. The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

original Plaintiffs has submitted that even by the impugned orders the

High Court has passed in favour of the Appellants herein to the extent

allowing the additional FSI.   

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at  length.  We have also gone through the  impugned order

passed by the High Court passed below the “Note for speaking to the

Minutes”.  While  passing the impugned order, the  High Court  has

directed the Appellants herein to execute the Deed of Conveyance of

the land to the extent of the building i.e. 2700 sq. meters in favour of

the original  Plaintiffs  and/or  the Society.   It is  also required to be

noted that while passing the impugned order in  Civil Application

No.1698 of  2015  in  First  Appeal  No.466 of  2010, in  which it  was

requested by the Appellants herein to modify the order dated

23.12.2014 passed below the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, the

High Court has even further clarified that the Appellants herein are

28

entitled to consume balance FSI of plot of land.   Therefore, in short,

the orders passed by the High Court passed below “Note for speaking

to the Minutes” in First Appeal No.466 of 2010 and the order passed

in Civil Application No.1698 of 2015 in First Appeal No.466 of 2010

are impugned in the present appeals.   Therefore, the short question

posed for the consideration of this Court is whether such an

order/orders could have been passed by  the High Court below the

“Note for speaking to the Minutes”?  

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

considering the impugned  order  passed  by the  High  Court  passed

below the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, we are of the opinion

that  while  passing such order  below  the “Note for  speaking  to the

Minutes”, the  High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in

regard to the scope of deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.  A

“Note for speaking to Minutes” is required to be entertained only for

the limited purpose  of  correcting  a typographical  error  or  an error

through oversight,  which may  have  crept in  while transcribing the

original order.   Once, the judgment/order is pronounced and if any

party to the same wants any rectification of any typographical error

and any clerical mistake regarding the date or number, such a party

may apply to the concerned Court for correcting such an error in the

29

judgment/order.   However, a “Note for speaking to the  Minutes”

cannot be considered at par with a review application or in a given

case, with an application for clarification/modification of an order.  A

“Note for speaking to the Minutes” can never be considered to be an

application of such a nature.  While passing the impugned order below

the “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, the High Court has virtually

modified its original order passed in First Appeal.   While passing the

impugned order, the High Court has given further directions as if the

High Court is passing the order on an application for

clarification/modification.   Therefore, such a course was not open to

the High Court while deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes”.

Since, the High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in regard to

the scope of deciding a “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, we have no

option but to set aside the impugned order passed below the “Note for

speaking to the Minutes”.

12.1 Even otherwise, the impugned orders are not sustainable at law.

It is required to be noted that it was the Appeal before the High Court,

preferred  by the  Appellants  herein–original  Defendants, challenging

the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, by which

the learned Trial Court specifically passed a decree directing the only

Defendant No.1 to convey the title and execute  document in favour of

30

the Society in respect of Suit Building and land to the extent of Suit

Building.   The Suit Building, from the  material on record, it is

emerging that the area of the building was 1009.70 sq.  meters.

Against that judgment and decree, original Private Defendants­

Appellants were before the High Court.  The Trial Court never passed

any decree directing the Appellants to execute the Deed of Conveyance

to the extent of 2700 sq. meters of land.  Therefore, while dismissing

the appeal, even otherwise, the High Court could not have passed any

further  order  beyond the  judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Court and that too  in absence of any cross objection and/or cross

appeal preferred by the original Plaintiffs.   In an Appeal preferred by

the  original  Defendants,  as  observed  above,  at the  most, the  High

Court can dismiss the Appeal and confirm the judgment and decree.

However, the Appellants­original Defendants cannot be put in a worse

condition than beyond the  judgment and decree passed by  learned

Trial Court which was appealed before the First Appellant Court and

that too in the absence of any cross­appeal or cross objection by the

original Plaintiffs.   Therefore also, the impugned orders passed by the

High Court which, as such, will go beyond the judgment and decree

passed by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable, more

particularly, in absence of any cross­appeal and/or order the cross

31

objection by the original Plaintiffs.   Once the High Court has

dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Appellants­original Defendants,

in that  case, in an appeal  preferred by  the original  Defendant, the

High Court could not have passed any further order beyond the

judgment and  decree  passed  by the learned  Trial  Court appealed.

Thus, by passing the impugned order,  it can be said that the High

Court has passed order beyond the scope and ambit of  the Appeal

before it and has exceeded in its jurisdiction not vested in it.

12.2 Even otherwise, it is  not  appreciable  how the High Court  has

arrived at the figure of 2700 sq. meters.  It appears from the material

on record that it was never the case on behalf of the original Plaintiffs

that the original Defendant No.1 shall execute the Deed of Conveyance

of the land to the extent of 2700 sq. meters.   Even considering the

map sanctioned by  the Corporation and even considering the reply

filed by the Corporation before this Court, it appears that the total plot

area of CTS No. 97/A­5/2 on which the building A­1 was constructed,

was 2593.70 sq.  meters,  out  of  which there  was a  construction of

building A­1 on the land admeasuring 1009.70 sq. meters.  Therefore

also, the impugned order passed  by the  High  Court directing the

Appellants herein­original Defendant No.1 to execute the  Deed of

Conveyance in respect of the land to the extent of 2700 sq. meters is

32

not sustainable.

12.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the Plaint/ Suit

before the Trial Court it was specifically averred by the Plaintiffs that:

i) Building occupies by the Plaintiffs are consisting of ground

plus four storeys and the total built­up area is 1205 sq. meters;   

ii) That under the provisions of law, the Plaintiffs and/or the

Society to be formed by the flat purchasers are entitled to an area

of land  corresponding to the  built­up  area  of the  building so

constructed  on  such land utilizing the  FSI  permissible  at the

relevant time;

iii) The Plaintiffs are entitled to a minimum plot are of around

1205 sq. yards.   

It cannot be disputed that the building A­1 was constructed on

the  land admeasuring 1205 sq.  yards­1009.70 sq.  meters and

that was the total built­up area of building A­1 which was

occupied by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs, therefore,  cannot  go beyond the  averments  and

pleadings in the Plaint.   Therefore, the Plaintiffs could not have

even asked for the execution of the Deed of Conveyance in

respect of the land beyond the built­up area of building A­1, more

particularly, when the Allottees/original Plaintiffs can claim the

33

rights with respect the building A­1 only.

12.4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Plaintiffs

have heavily relied upon the cross­examination of DW­1 Omprakash

Didwanja and have submitted that the Defendants’ witness specifically

admitted that the Suit building has been constructed on the plot of

the land admeasuring 2573.31 sq. meters and, therefore, the Plaintiffs

were entitled to the Deed of Conveyance with respect to the entire plot

of land 2573.31 sq. meters.   The same has no substance. There is a

difference and distinction between the built­up area of building and

the plot area. As observed above, the Plaintiff specifically averred and

pleaded in paragraphs 18 that they are entitled to an area of  land

corresponding to the built­up area of the building so constructed on

such land.  Therefore also, the High Court is not justified in directing

Defendant No.1 to execute the Deed of Conveyance with respect to the

land admeasuring to the extent of 2700 sq.meters.

12.5 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned orders passed by  the High Court  dated 23.12.14 passed

below “Note for speaking to the Minutes”, in First Appeal No.466/2010

and the order dated 04.07.15 passed in Civil Application

No.1698/2015  in First  Appeal  No.466/2010 deserve to be quashed

34

and set aside and the Civil Appeals arising out of the said orders are

required to be allowed.

13. So far as the Appeals arising out of the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court dated 10.09.2015   in WP©

No.992/2015 is concerned, it appears that the Divisional Registrar of

the Co­operative Societies has passed an order of deemed Conveyance

of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq. meters, which was the subject

matter in the Writ Petition before the High Court and the High Court

by impugned judgment and  order  has dismissed the  Writ Petition

confirming the order passed by the Divisional Registrar granting

deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters.

13.1    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

considering the order passed by the Divisional  Registrar of  deemed

Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters,  it  appears

that the Divisional Registrar considered the orders passed by the High

Court below  “Note for speaking to the Minutes”’ in the First Appeal as

well as solely relying upon the property card.   However, as observed

hereinabove,  while deciding the  Appeals arising out of the order

passed by the High Court below “Note for speaking to the Minutes”,

the original Plaintiff­Society shall not be entitled to the Deed of

35

Conveyance to the extent of area admeasuring 2700 sq.meters and/or

even  2593.70 sq.meters  and they shall be entitled to the  Deed  of

Conveyance of  the area admeasuring 1009.70 sq.meters which was

the built up area of building A­1 and, therefore, for the reasons stated

hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court dated 10.09.2015 in Writ Petition ©  No.992/2015 confirming

the order passed by the Divisional Registrar Co­operative Societies of

deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters also

deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Appeals arising out of

the impugned orders passed by the High Court  in W.P. No. 992 of

2015 deserves to be allowed.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these

appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.  The impugned orders dated

23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay passed below “Note

for speaking to the Minutes” in First Appeal No.466/2010 as well as

the impugned order dated 04.07.2015 passed by the High Court of

Bombay in Civil Application No.1698 of 2015 in First Appeal

No.466/2010 are hereby quashed and set aside.

15. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of

Bombay dated 10.04.2015 in Writ Petition © No.992/2015 confirming

36

the order passed by the Divisional  Registrar of   the   Co­operative

Societies of deemed  Conveyance of the area admeasuring 2593.70

sq.meters is also hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the

order passed by the Divisional Registrar of Deemed Conveyance of the

area admeasuring 2593.70 sq.meters is hereby quashed and set aside

and it is directed and the same is modified to the extent of granting

deemed Conveyance of the area admeasuring 1009.70 sq.meters only.

The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

16. In  the facts  and circumstances  of the  cases, there  will  be  no

order as to costs.   In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the

Contempt Petitions as well as the interlocutory application pending, if

any, shall also stand disposed of.  

…….………………………..J. (A.K. SIKRI)

……………………………..J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

……………………………..J. (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, December 14, 2018