SAU.MANISH MADANMOHAN AGRAWAL Vs. SATYANARAYAN DULICHANDJI AGRAWAL AND OTHERS.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sau.Manish Madanmohan Agrawal
Satyanarayan Dulichandji Agrawal And Others.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality
(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the original defendant nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the decree passed by
the trial Court on 17.10.2019 in the suit for partition and
separate possession that was filed by the original plaintiffs. The
suit property pertains to area within field Survey No.121/1.
According to the plaintiffs, by a sale deed dated 27.07.2016 one- third undivided share of the predecessor of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 - Madanmohan came to be sold to the defendant no.1. According to the plaintiffs, the vendor of the defendant no.1 had only one-fifteenth (1/15th) undivided share in the property. Hence the aforesaid suit for partition along with separate possession and for declaration to that effect was filed. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 entered into a compromise by virtue of which it was agreed between them that each plaintiff and the defendant no.1 would be put in separate possession of independent plots of the suit property. The suit was withdrawn as against defendant nos. 2 to
4. The trial Court accepted the compromise as agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 and decreed the suit accordingly. The said judgment is under challenge by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 principally on the ground that they were not parties to the compromise petition on the basis of which the suit was disposed of. While issuing the notice this Court had passed an ad-interim order staying the effect of the judgment of the trial Court.
(3.) In the application for vacating the ad-interim order the original defendant no.1 has submitted that pursuant to the
sale deed dated 27.07.2016 he has purchased the suit property.
What was sold to him was one-third undivided share of the
predecessor of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 and the defendant nos. 2
to 4 were consenting parties to the sale deed. This sale deed has
not been challenged by the defendant nos. 2 to 4. Moreover, the
rights of the defendant nos. 2 to 4 were not affected by virtue of
the compromise and an arrangement was made only with regard
to giving exclusive separate possession to the plaintiffs and the
defendant no.1 of the suit property. The defendant nos. 2 to 4
are not affected by the compromise. By virtue of the ad-interim
order the defendant no.1 is not in a position to deal with the
property. Hence, it is prayed that the ad-interim relief be
In reply it is submitted by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 that as written statement on behalf of the said defendants is not on record of the trial Court, it would not be possible to take any stand on the merits of the dispute. The compromise having been arrived at behind the back of the defendant nos. 2 to 4, it was illegal and not binding on them. The ad-interim order therefore ought to be confirmed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.