Judgment :- 1. The plaintiffs in the above suits have sued the defendants for declaration of validity of 2 Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) dated 7th August, 2013 and 20th October 2014 and for specific performance of those MOUs and other incidental reliefs. 2. The two plaintiffs in the two suits are the same. 3. The MOUs have been executed with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 in the above two suits are different. The suit properties in the above two suits are adjoining properties. They are bounded on one side by the compound wall of BEST colony and on the other by the Eastern Express Highway at village Vikroli, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai. 4. The plaintiffs claim their right, title and interest through defendant No.1. The right, title and interest, if any, of defendant No.1, was agreed to be transferred to the plaintiff upon development of such plots of land. The plaintiffs would be entitled to sue and claim specific performance to develop the suit plots and land under the aforesaid MOUs only if defendant No.1 in both the suits had title and could pass it on to the plaintiff. It is trite that none can transfer a better title than what he has. The Court, therefore, desired to see the title holder of the suit properties and to see the right, title and interest traced by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 and the predecessor in title of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have produced the property register cards as also the 7x12 extracts in respect of the suit properties. The suit property is stated to be on CTS No.1A (part), Survey No.65 (part). The aforesaid survey number as also CTS number is a large area in village Vikroli. The suit properties form a part of CTS No.1A/Survey No.65. 5. The property register cards of CTS No.1A show the holder of the land to be Mumbai Upnagar Zilla, Andheri in 1984 and BEST from 1988. The remark in the property register cards show that the earlier cards were cancelled and new cards were opened. It makes a reference to Vikroli Trombay Arterial Railway Siding for which the property came to be acquired. 6. Mr. Thakkar on behalf of the plaintiff argued that that acquisition has not been finalised. 7. The 7x12 extracts show one Ganpat Koli in possession of the property under Survey No.65 (part). It makes a reference to Vikroli Trombay Arterial Railway Siding for which the property came to be acquired. 6. Mr. Thakkar on behalf of the plaintiff argued that that acquisition has not been finalised. 7. The 7x12 extracts show one Ganpat Koli in possession of the property under Survey No.65 (part). They also show Maharashtra Griha Nirman Mandal (MHADA) as the Kabjedar or the party in possession. A mutation entry of 14th April 1970 shows that the name of the Koli was cut/removed and the name of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (Godrej) was inserted in the Revenue record. A further mutation entry of 18th October 1972 shows two awards passed in 1971 under the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition was for MHADA for Rs.2,04,000/-. The property is shown to be acquired from Godrej. 8. The mutation entry dated 21st December, 1987 shows an award passed by the SLAO in 1987 in favour of Vikroli Trombay Railway Siding of Central Railway in 1986. It shows possession of the land given to the Central Railway on 22nd October, 1986. The remarks column shows the award and the possession receipt seen and accepted. 9. A further mutation entry dated 29th December, 1987 shows an award passed in favour of BEST in 1986. It makes reference to Suit No.105 of 1965 in which an order came to be passed relating to possession receipt of 1974. 10. A further mutation entry No.125 refers to a Civil Application No.679 of 1973 filed by the Government claiming land under City Survey No.61 to 65 admeasuring 3054 acres which is shown to be Government land. The 7x12 extracts further show Government land as claimed in Civil Application No. 679 of 1973 which also shows distruction of mangroves in 1700 acres of land. 11. Consequently it is seen that the suit land never belonged to defendant No.1. It was initially in possession of Koli whose name was removed and the name of Godrej was entered. It was acquired from Godrej for MHADA, Central Railway and BEST. Defendant No.1 was in no part of survey No.65 (part). 12. The suit land, therefore, is seen to be Government land. 13. It was initially in possession of Koli whose name was removed and the name of Godrej was entered. It was acquired from Godrej for MHADA, Central Railway and BEST. Defendant No.1 was in no part of survey No.65 (part). 12. The suit land, therefore, is seen to be Government land. 13. The plaintiffs in Suit No. 135 of 2015 have produced two unregistered sale deeds executed by and between one Shahabuddin Rehman Khan and one Ibrahim Rehaman Shah on 13th April 1982 and another sale deed dated 14th February, 1991 between Ibrahim Rehman Shah and defendant No.1 from whom the plaintiffs claim their rights. The plaintiffs have also claimed that one Baldev Jasbir Singh executed an unregistered agreement with defendants on 28th May, 1986, but have not produced any such agreement. Such agreement would be misplaced. It would be between the dates of the aforesaid two agreements between defendant No.1 and his alleged predecessors-in-title. 14. The plaintiffs in Suit No.137 of 2015 have produced a copy of an unregistered sale deed between one Gangaram (not Ganpat) Koli and defendant No.1 which is also not produced despite the Court's direction. 15. Defendant No.1, who is not shown in the Revenue records in respect of the suit properties, claimed title under the unregistered sale deeds which cannot be looked into by the Court or relied upon by the parties to claim title. The plaintiffs, therefore, are seen to have claimed title from defendant No.1 in Suit No. 135 of 2015 who had no title himself. 16. Mr. Thakkar argued that defendant No.1 in both the suits were in adverse possession and claimed title by prescription. Hence the plaintiff would claim that such title has been transferred to the plaintiff under the MOUs which are sought to be specifically enforced. Even if that was so, the name of defendant No.1 or his predecessors-in-title would have been shown in the revenue records. That would be the best corroborative evidence of the prescriptive title of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. Instead the name of one Koli is shown and that name later has been deleted under the aforesaid mutation entry. 17. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 has produced any document showing the title by adverse possession of defendant No.1. Possession for as long as for 12 years would necessarily be evidenced by documents. Instead the name of one Koli is shown and that name later has been deleted under the aforesaid mutation entry. 17. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 has produced any document showing the title by adverse possession of defendant No.1. Possession for as long as for 12 years would necessarily be evidenced by documents. The only document relied upon by the plaintiff is a copy of a letter of defendant No.1 in both the suits. In Suit No.135 of 2015 defendant No.1 is shown to have written a letter dated 11th May 1994 to Godrej. The letter is shown to be sent by registered post. It is shown to bear a rubber stamp of Godrej with an illegible initial. The property under survey No.65 (part) came to be acquired from Godrej for the aforesaid acquiring bodies in 1970s. Hence Godrej would no longer be interested in or concerned with the said letter. Godrej has naturally not replied to the said letter. 18. Defendant No.1 in Suit No.137 of 2015 is shown to have addressed one letter to the Tahasildar, Topiwala College Compound, Mulund, Mumbai-400 009 calling upon him to make assessment of NA tax on CTS No.1 (part) at village Vikroli. The letter is shown to be received by the Tahsildar on 20th May 1994 and has not been replied. The letter does not specify any specific part of CTS No.1 (part). The suit property is on CTS No.1A (part). Hence the letter does not relate to the suit property. It may be mentioned that the letter does not even specify the description of boundaries or the area in which the NA tax assessment was claimed. The letter shows only “12000 sq. mtr” in a different ink in the subject of the letter. 19. The plaintiff in Suit No.137 of 2015 has relied upon certain receipts for payment of revenue in the name of MHADA, in Suit No.137 of 2015. The receipt does not show for which specific property the payment is made. It is shown to be made on 17th November, 2009 for the years 1993 to 2010. Such a document would not show the possession or the adverse possession of defendant No.1 who paid the amount in 2009 in respect of the suit property. 20. It is seen that defendant No.1 in both the suits had neither any possession nor any title in the suit properties. Such a document would not show the possession or the adverse possession of defendant No.1 who paid the amount in 2009 in respect of the suit property. 20. It is seen that defendant No.1 in both the suits had neither any possession nor any title in the suit properties. The suit properties belong to the Government. The suit properties have been acquired. They are acquired for three separate acquiring bodies. Defendant No.1, without any semblance of right, title or interest in the suit lands, sought to enter into the MOU with the plaintiff and sought to develop the suit land. Defendant No.1 has no title under the sale deeds which have remained unregistered. The sale deeds are of parties not on revenue records. The plaintiffs in both the suits have no semblance of title to the suit land. 21. The suit properties are shown to have been encroached by rank trespassers just prior to the suit being filed. Photographs produced by the plaintiff show no structure on the suit property. Only some stray persons are seen to be squatting on the land shown in the photographs upon the case that it is the suit lands. 22. The suit is wholly false and purportedly collusive. The plaintiffs and/or defendant No.1 have sought to create rights in the property which belongs to the State of Maharashtra. 23. However since the Court has been shown the revenue records of the suit property and have seen rights created in favour of the aforesaid three acquiring bodies, it becomes the duty and the obligation of the Court to inform the State of Maharashtra as also the acquiring bodies MHADA, BEST and Central Railway of the civil action in the above suits. 24. The Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay shall inform the State of Maharashtra through the learned Advocate General, State of Maharashtra as also the General Manager of the aforesaid three acquiring bodies the fact of the above suits having been filed and the interim relief being pressed. The State of Maharashtra as also the aforesaid three acquiring bodies shall inform the Court about the steps taken by them for protection and use in respect of the specific portions of survey No.65 (part) and CTS No.1A (part) got acquired by the Government for them. 25. Notices of Motion are adjourned to 27th April, 2015. Part-heard. First on board. 26. 25. Notices of Motion are adjourned to 27th April, 2015. Part-heard. First on board. 26. In the meantime the original documents produced by the plaintiffs in 2 separate files for the above 2 suits shall be kept on record in a sealed cover. 27. The other documents are returned to the plaintiffs.