RAJKUMAR DHANANIA & ORS. Vs. PAWAN PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of an order passed in execution proceedings pertaining to a consent decree. The suit was filed by the respondent developer for the specific performance of the contract for development. The property is in up-market Theatre Road. The suit of 1985 was compromised by terms of settlement being executed in the year 2003, in effect, varying and even extinguishing certain rights under the original development agreement of October 13, 1982. The appeal has been filed by the heirs of the fourth defendant in the suit, primarily on the ground that despite a substantial part of the consideration due under the consent terms admittedly remaining outstanding, the executing court has required the appellants to execute the conveyance in respect of the land in favour of the developer or a receiver to do the necessary act upon the appellants' failure.

(2.) The consent terms of November 25, 2003 envisaged the shares of some of the defendants as undivided part owners of the property to vest in the plaintiff. The relevant document recognised that the predecessor of the appellants herein was entitled to one-fourth undivided share in the property and provided for the transfer thereof to the respondent. The following clauses of the consent terms of November 25, 2003 are of some relevance in the context of the order impugned and the rival contentions in the present appeal:

(3.) It is not in doubt that as recorded in Schedule-'X' to the consent terms of November 25, 2003, insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose, the appellants herein were paid a sum of Rs.40 lakh against the total consideration of Rs.85 lakh as envisaged in clause 1(e) of Part-I of Schedule-'X' to the consent terms. It is also not in dispute that after the execution of the consent terms, the balance amount of Rs.45 lakh has also been paid by the respondent to the appellants.