MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ETC. versus ASHABHAI ATMARAM PATEL(D) TH. LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R 1 
MAHALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
& ETC. 
v. 
ASHABHAIATMARAM PATEL(D) TH. LRS. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2050-2053 of 2013) 
MARCH 01, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XX/I/ r.3 - Civil 
suits against original owner of the land in question and C 
purchaser-housing society - By the plaintiffs claiming to be 
purchasers of the land in question -
In, 'out of court 
settlement', one of the plaintiffs by virtue of Power of Attorney 
accepting certain amounts for himself and other 4 plaintiffs 
- Subsequently two of the plaintiffs (Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4) 
D 
revoking the Power of Attorney- However, except one plaintiff 
(Plaintiff No. 3) all other plaintiffs executing Dead of 
Confirmation acknowledging receipt of the amount from the 
Housing society - Plaintiff-Power of Attorney holder filing 
pursis on his behalf and on behalf of other plaintiffs except 
E 
Plaintiff No.3 - Trial court disposing of the suits accepting 
the pursis - Order of trial court set aside by High Court - On 
appeal, held: There was not illegality is disposing of the suits 
under Or.XXllJ r.3 accepting the pursis -
Compromise 
between the parties was prior to the cancellation of Power of F 
Attorney by plaintiff No.3, hence he was bound by the 
compromise - Legal heirs of plaintiff Nos.4 are a/so bound 
by the compromise as they cannot question the documents 
executed by plaintiff No.4 - Since the legal heirs of plaintiff 
No.4 did not get themselves impleaded as parties after the 
death of plaintiff No.4, the suit stood abated qua them. 
G 
Suits : 
Consolidation of suits - Purpose of - Held: Purpose of 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A consolidation of suits is for meetings ends of justice as it 
saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and 
expenses - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.151. 
Transfer and Consolidation of suits - Effect of - Held: 
8 
Transfer of suits will not take away the right of the parties to 
invoke Or.XX/II r.3 CPC -
Suits always retain their 
independent identity - Even after consolidation court can 
independently dispose of a suit, if ingredients of Or.XX/II r.3 
are satisfied - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 24, OR. XX/II 
c r.3. 
The property in question was sold by respondent 
No.6 to respondent Nos.1 to 5 (purchasers) in the year, 
1964. The purchasers further executed agreement to sell 
the property in question to the appellant-society in the 
D year 1975. 
Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 executed a Power of 
Attorney, in favour of respondent No.4 providing that the 
same would be binding on respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 
E and their descendants, guardians and legal heirs. 
In the year 1991, respondent No.6 entered into 
agreement to sell the property in question to the 
appellant-Society and permission was also granted ul 
s.20 of Urbans Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 
F 1999. Thereafter, she sold the property to the appellant-
Society by two sale deeds. 
Respondent No.s1 to 5 filed Special Civil Suit before 
High Court challenging the order passed uls.20 of the 
G Act. They also filed Civil Suit for a declaration that the 
sale-deeds executed by respondent No.6 in favour of the 
appellant-Society was illegal. 
Respondent Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.6 and the 
appellant-Society settled their disputes and thereby 
H 
MAHAlAXMI COOP. HOUS. SOC. LTD. & ETC. v. ASHABHAI 
3 
ATMARAM PATEL (D) TH. LRS. 
appellant-Society paid an amount of Rs.29, 72,365/- to A 
respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notarised Acknowledgement-
cum-Settlement receipt was also issued. Registered Deed 
of Confirmation was executed by respondent No.4 (the 
Power of Attorney-holder) for himself and on behalf of 
respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 acknowledging receipt of s 
the above-mentioned amount and also further payment 
of Rs.30,05,527/- by the appellant-Society. Declaration-
cum-Indemnity of title was also made, wherein it was 
stated that the appellant-Society was the full, legal, proper 
and absolute owner and possessor of the land in c 
question. 
Thereafter, respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 
(legal heir of Plaintiff No.4) by public Notice, cancelled the 
power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No.4. 
They also objected to the title of the appellant-Society. 
D 
However, predecessor of respondent No.1 (Plaintiff No.4, 
who later expired) also executed Deed of Confirmation 
acknowledging he receipt of the am

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.