1 hr ago
Mumbai Commission Upholds Recovery From Daughters’ Flats
A man named Shainand Shrishail Thombare was trying to recover ₹4.40 lakh.
The money was connected to a flat project in Panvel.
A consumer court had earlier ordered Shailesh Dawda to pay the amount.
Shailesh died before the money was recovered.
His daughters, Prerana and Tanya, owned two flats in Vashi after their mother gave them the properties.
They said the flats belonged to them personally and should not be used to pay their father’s liability.
The commission said their mother had been their father’s legal heir and had transferred the flats to them.
It also said the gift deeds might have been made to prevent the flats from being attached.
The commission therefore dismissed their challenge.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission dismissed Prerana and Tanya Dawda’s challenge to recovery proceedings.
The case concerns ₹4.40 lakh paid by Shainand Shrishail Thombare for a Panvel flat.
The liability arose from an order against the sisters’ deceased father, Shailesh Dawda.
The sisters argued their Vashi flats were personal property and could not be attached for their father’s debts.
The commission held that the flats transferred by their mother could be considered for recovery and questioned whether the gifts were intended to avoid attachment.
- Who
- Prerana Dawda and Tanya Dawda challenged recovery proceedings connected to their deceased father, Shailesh Dawda; Shainand Shrishail Thombare sought recovery.
- What
- The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission dismissed the sisters’ revision petition against recovery proceedings involving two Vashi flats.
- Where
- The proceedings involved flats at Daffodils Annexe, Sector 14, Vashi, and originated from a dispute over a project at Vihighar, Panvel.
- When
- The decision was reported on September 5, 2026; the flats were gifted to the daughters in 2022.
- Why
- The commission found that the daughters could not avoid recovery after receiving properties from their mother, who was the deceased’s legal heir.
Daughters’ Position
Commission’s Position
Whether the flats could be attached
Daughters’ Position
The sisters argued that the flats were not inherited from their father and were their personal properties, so they could not be attached for his liabilities.
Commission’s Position
The commission held that the properties transferred by their mother could be considered in recovery because she was the deceased’s legal heir.
Limit of legal-heir liability
Daughters’ Position
The sisters relied on Section 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits a legal representative’s liability to property received from the deceased.
Commission’s Position
The commission said the daughters had not produced documents showing that they had received no property from their father and could be treated as legal heirs through their mother.
Purpose of the gift deeds
Daughters’ Position
The sisters relied on their ownership of the flats in challenging the recovery proceedings.
Commission’s Position
The commission said the gift deeds appeared to have been executed to avoid attachment and defeat the consumer’s recovery rights.
Key facts
- Amount in dispute
- ₹4.40 lakh
- Applicant parties
- Prerana Dawda and Tanya Dawda
- Deceased liable party
- Shailesh Dawda
- Claimant
- Shainand Shrishail Thombare
- Properties involved
- Two flats at Daffodils Annexe, Sector 14, Vashi
- Property transfer
- Padma Dawda transferred the flats to her daughters through gift deeds in 2022
- Recovery authority
- The Additional District Consumer Commission, Thane, issued a recovery certificate under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Quotes
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State consumer dispute adjudicating body that decided the daughters’ challenge
“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present Revision Petition has no merit.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Consumer Commission Orders Attachment of Sushma Chandigarh Grande
Mumbai Commission Revives Nine-Year-Old Complaint Over ₹30 Chakali Receipt
Tajdar Amrohi Challenges Preity Zinta’s Rs 2 Crore Claim
Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Recovery From Government Employee’s Widow
Samaan Capital Won’t Challenge Chandra Repayment Plan Approval
MahaREAT Orders Refund After Mumbai Flat Possession Delay
Delhi Commission Orders Doctor to Pay Rs 35 Lakh
Maharashtra Commission Orders IVF Doctor to Pay Surrogacy Compensation
