LexRANGNATH HARIDAS versus DR. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' RANGNA TH HARIDAS A v. DR. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE AUGUST 22, 2006 [S:B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Specific. performance-Suit for-Consent decree-Enforcement of- Agreement for purchase of flat-Suit for specific performance of the agreement-During pendency of suit, parties amicably settled the dispute- C High Court held that the consent terms were valid and subsisting and passed order incorporating the terms of consent-Consent terms not substituted by subsequent agreement as alleged-Hence, parties directed by Supreme Court to give effect to terms of the consent decree-Reciprocal obligations of the parties directed to be acted upon simultaneously. Respondent entered into an agreement with Appellant for purchase D of a flat. Despite making part payment, when Appellant did not perform his part of the agreement, Respondent filed suit in the High Court seeking specific performance of the said agreement. During pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled the dispute. High Court held that the consent .terms were valid and subsisting and passed order incorporating the terms E of consent. In appeal to this Court, it was inter alia contended that the High Court passed the impugned judgment without noticing the fact that the consent terms had been substituted by a subsequent agreement between the parties. F Disposing of the ap(!eal, the Court HELD: t. As the High Court as also this Court are acting on the basis of the terms of the consent decree, the reciprocal obligations of the parties should be directed to be acted upon simultaneously. This Court is G not satisfied ·that the consent terms were in any manner substituted by another agreement between the parties. Hence, the parties should be directed to give effect to the terms of the consent decree. Whereas the appellant is to handover the flat to the respondent, the respondent was 913 H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A also obligated to transfer the land situated in the District of Pone. Both the parties have failed to comply with their mutual obligations. (923-D-FJ 2. It is therefore directed as under: B (i) The appellant shall handover possession of Flat No. B-4, 2nd c D Floor, 8-Wing, Anant Patil Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai- 400 028 to the respondent, wherefor the requisite partition wall, if any, should be constructed. In case of any doubt or dispute as to the exact area of the flat in question, a surveyor may be appointed to demarcate the said flat and ensure construction of a wall between Flat No.B-3 and 8-4. The appointment of surveyor, if any, should be undertaken within three weeks from date. The respondent shall bear the expenses therefor. The respondent shall also bear all costs for preparation of documents, stamp duties and registration costs, etc., if any, thereafter transfer of the said prorerty. (ii) The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the respondent with the Court Receiver, which sum is over and above the amount of Rs. 5,35,000/- paid by the respondent to the appellant. E (iii) The respondent shall execute a contract in the same format which the other allottees of the building had undertaken in regard to maintenance etc. of the said flat. (iv) The respondent shall execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the appellant in respecfof the land being Survey 25 (Gate No. 255) situated F at Village Loni Lalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District Pone, admeasuring 324 sq. metres within four weeks from date. He shall also handover vacant peaceful possession thereof within six weeks. The appellant shall pay and bear the costs for requisite stamp papers as also the registration charges. G (923-GH; 924-A-El CIVIL APPELLATF JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3596 of2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 2 I.I 0.2004 and 17 .8.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 672/2004 in Chamber Summons No. 1460/2003 in ExecJtion Application No. 388/2003 in Suit No. H 3550/90 an in Chamber Summons No. 1460/2003 in Execution Application .' .• RANGNATH HAR!DAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DALVEER BHANDARI, l.J 915 No. 388/2003 in Suit No. 3550/90. A A.K. Ganguli, K.C. Kaushik, Rahul Kaushik, Shilpi Kaushik and Ashok Kumar Singh for the Appellant. Arvind Sawant, Shekhar Parbawalkar and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DALVEER BHANDARI, J. Leave granted. By the o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.