7-SA456-2026+.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7274 OF 2026 Wajahat Hussain @ Vazahat Husain Jafari ...Appellant/ Applicant Gazi Ghulam Abbas …Respondent Mr. Imran Shaikh, for the Appellant. Mr. Prashant Rajput, for the Respondent. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane, in Regular Civil Appeal No.212/2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants – original defendant against a decree for possession and perpetual injunction passed by the trial Court in RCS/929/2012, came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit flat was purportedly purchased by Gazi Ghulam Abbas, the 1/4 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.10.03 12:19:20 +0530 7-SA456-2026+.DOC respondent – plaintiff alongwith his brother Asad Abbas. However, the plaintiff falsely claimed that, Asad Abbas had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff, and the Courts below have thus committed a manifest error in passing a decree on the basis of false and forged documents. It was further submitted that the plaintiff alone could not have instituted the suit. The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the original defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were the sisters of the plaintiff and Asad Abbas and defendant No.3 was the sister- in-law of the plaintiff and they were inducted in the suit flat in the year 1993 by Asad Abbas. Thus a decree for possession could not have been passed against the defendants. 5. Evidently, the Agreement for Sale reveals that the suit flat was jointly purchased by Gazi and Asad Abbas. It is incontrovertible that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the suit flat. It is not necessary that all the co-owners must join in the institution of the suit for recovery of possession of the property. One of the co-owners is entitled to institute the suit for possession. Therefore, the ground that the suit was bad for 2/4 7-SA456-2026+.DOC non-joinder of necessary parties, does not merit any countenance. 6. An endeavour was made on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to drive home the point that the suit property was acquired out of the funds or income from the properties of their parents. However, the Courts have negatived the contention and, rightly so, as a suit for administration of the estate of the father instituted by the defendants came to be dismissed for want of prosecution and, even otherwise, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said defence. 7. The defendants, the Courts below have found, failed to show that, they have right to possess the suit flat. In the absence of any right to occupy the suit flat, the defendants cannot be permitted to hold on to the suit flat on an unsubstantiated plea that they were inducted by another co- owners. At any rate, the possession of the defendants could only be said to be permissive without any semblance of right. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are not open for interference in exercise of the second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, no question of law, 3/4 7-SA456-2026+.DOC much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 9. The second appeal stands dismissed. 10. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, IA/7274/2026 also stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4