The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the heirs of the late Sharad Madhavrao Gangla, who had sought to nullify the conversion of the century-old “Mantri Building” at Gamdevi, Mumbai, into apartment ownership two decades ago. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the case, ruled that the suit was “hopelessly barred by limitation” and appeared to have been filed merely to obstruct the building’s ongoing redevelopment project.
Background
The dispute traces its roots to a 1921 lease granted to the original owner, Ramchandra Bhaskar Mantri. His successors eventually assigned the rights to the Gangla family in 1925. The plaintiffs-three siblings-claimed that the property was joint family land and that their late father, Sharad Gangla, had illegally executed a declaration and several “Deeds of Apartment” in 2004–2005, converting tenants into owners without their consent.
In 2024, the family allegedly discovered the old documents after learning that the Mantri Building Condominium had entered into a redevelopment agreement with a private developer. They filed the suit in February 2025, seeking to annul the 2004–2005 apartment deeds and the 2024 development contract.
The condominium association, represented by counsel Mayur Khandeparkar, countered that the suit was decades too late and intended only to stall redevelopment. The plaintiffs, represented by Kunal Kumbhat, maintained that they had no knowledge of the earlier transactions until 2024, invoking a three-year limitation period from the date of discovery.
Court’s Observations
Justice Marne examined whether the case was governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act (three-year limit for cancelling instruments) or Article 109 (a twelve-year period for challenging a father’s alienation of ancestral property).
“The pleadings clearly show,” the bench observed, “that the plaintiffs are the children seeking to set aside their father’s alienation of ancestral property. Hence, Article 109 applies.”
Under that article, the limitation clock starts when possession is taken by the alienees in this case, the former tenants who became apartment owners in 2004–2005. The court found that since those deeds were registered and possession changed hands then, the 12-year period expired long before the 2025 lawsuit.
“It becomes impossible to believe,” Justice Marne noted, “that the plaintiffs, who own a flat in the same building and saw the condominium functioning for 20 years, were unaware of these documents.” He remarked that the case was “a cleverly drafted attempt to derail the redevelopment process.”
Decision
Concluding that the suit was “clearly barred by limitation” and filed with an “oblique motive of preventing redevelopment,” the High Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
“The building is over a century old and needs immediate redevelopment,” the court said, adding that “further judicial time cannot be wasted on hopelessly time-barred claims.”
Accordingly, Justice Marne dismissed the suit and allowed the condominium’s application to reject the plaint.
Case Title: Mantri Building Condominium vs. Neeraj Sharad Gangla & Ors.
Case Type: Interim Application No. 1949 of 2025 in Suit (Lodg.) No. 6763 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025