LexBHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR versus M/S. KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. [2009] 9 S.C.R. 515 ~:"\ BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR A • v . M/S. KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS. (I.A. Nos. 4, 6, 7 & 8 in Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 200_8) MAY 15, 2009 B -"'! [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] ,-l Interim order: Restraint order - Interim order restraining any dealings with the suit properties and for maintaining status quo passed on an application of respondent 1 - c Respondent 1 did not prove its title over the properties - Held: Respondent 1 has no right to seek continuation of interim order - Merely because the same was in force for a long time ""' y would be no ground to allow same to continue. On 27.5.1949, the Collector recorded a grant of lease D of lands in favour of Sowar Ramji Vaity for 999 years. Sowar died in 1965 leaving behind LRs (Vaitys) to succeed to his estate. On 1.10.1973, t~e Vaitys agreed to sell their rights in the lands to one Danani. Under the E agreement, Danani was required to obtain lease of suit -· lands from the Collector in favour of Vaitys within 2 years. i During April..June 1974, Danani constituted a partnership firm with K.V. Thakker and S.S. Thakker under the name ~ .... of Swas Construction Co. The appellant who was minor F was admitted to the benefits of partnership firm. The agreement recorded giving possession of suit land to Swas Construction Company. As the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, - l 1976 came into force, Danani filed declaration under the G Act. On 12.6.1979, the Government executed a lease in favour of Vaitys for 60 years. Immediately thereafter on 18.6.1979 Vaitys entered into an agreement with Modern Development Corporation giving development rights in -. 515 H 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. A respect of suit lands. On 24.8.1979, Modern Development Corporation agreed to transfer its rights to respondent no.1 and agreed to obtain confirmation from Thakker Associates that there was no subsisting agreement for sa1e in their favour in respect of property agreed to be B sold. On 18.2.1980, K.V. Thakker filed suits for declaration against Danani and S.S. Thakker praying for declaration that there was a partnership between them and Danani and S.S. Thakker had retired from Swas Construction C Company. On 9.10.1980, High Court appointed a receiver of properties. On 15.5.1981, Vaitys terminated agreement with Modern Development Corporation. Modern D Development Corporation could not go to the court as it was unregistered firm. Respondent 1 filed suit against Vaitys and Modern Development Corporation for specific performance of 1979 agreement. On 1.7.1982, High Court passed restraint order against Vaitys and partners of E Modern Development Corporation. All parties compromised and a consent decree was passed. In 1999 respondent 38 applied for vacation of stay order of 1.7.1982. In August, 2000 respondent no.1 filed an application under order 6, Rule 17 CPC to join respondent F 13 to 19 as defendants and to incorporate challenge to the consent decree which was dismissed and the restraint order was vacated. The three appeals were filed and Division Bench of High Court allowed them. These appeals were filed against the order of High Court G allowing the amendment of the plaint and joining respondent 13 to 19 as additional defendants. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Once the prayer for amendment of the plaint H to include the challenge to the consent decree passed in -.. -~ ... .. ·- ~ -- i - - l •• BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKAR v. KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. 517 a suit was disallowed by this Court, the question of A restraining them from dealing with the suit properties over which the Respondent No.1 has no established claim would be completely unreasonable and merely because the same had been in force for a long time, would be no ground to allow the same to continue. [Para 23] [528-8- B CJ c I 2. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between respondent 1 and the Vaitys, its claim is, therefore, restricted to Modern Development Corporation alone and is also dependent upon the right of Modern Development Corporation to specific performance of its agreement with the Vaitys. In other words, until and unless Modern Development Corporation is able to establish a right over the suit properties, respondent 1 can have no claim in respect thereof. Furthermore, since D the Receiver continues to be in possession of the suit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.