LexSHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL AND ORS. versus NIRMALA JAYPRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 4 S.C.R. 958 SHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL AND ORS. v. NIRMALA JAYPRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3549-3551 of 2010) APRIL 21, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Deed and document: C Power of Attorney (POA) - Party executing the POA is bound by the acts of the POA holder- On facts, predecessor- in-interest of appellant executed POA in favour of respondent . 9 - On the death of predecessor, all the appellants executed POA in favour of respondent 9 - On the basis of POA, D respondent 9 entered into consent terms with opposite parties - Consent terms challenged by appellants - Held: Appellants are estopped from questioning the, acts done by respondent 9 - Court can accept the consent terms entered into by the POA holder on behalf of the parties and consent decree so E obtained would be valid - Compromise/Settlement- Estoppel - Consent decree - Power of Attorney. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.23 r.3 - Compromise under - Burden to prove that F ·compromise tainted by fraud or coercion - Held: Lies on the party who alleges the same - On facts, particulars in support of the allegation of fraud or coercion in obtaining consent decree not properly pleaded as required by law - Consent decree would remain valid - Compromise/settlement - G Consent decree. H The original plaintiff, 'BVP' was the predecessor of the appellants, who was appointed as a watchman by one 'RKT' for taking care of the suit property and for this 958 SHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL v. NIRMALA 959 JAY™KASH TIWARI _purpose, a Kachc'ha shed on the suit property was A provided to him. In due course of time, 'BVP' extended the shed to construct 38 rooms which were let out by him. After the death of the real owner of the suit property, suit property was recorded in the name of wife of the owner; respondent no.7. In 1992, by way of consent decree, in a B suit between respondent 7 and 8, the latter became the owner of the suit property. In 1994, 'BVP' entered into a Development Agreement with respondent 9 whereby 'BVP' transferred his rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of respondent 9. In 1999, 'BVP' filed a c suit against respondent no.7 and 'RKT', the predecessor- in-title of respondent no.1 to 6 for seeking a declaration that• he was the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. 'RKT' also filed a suit for declaration of title in his favour. Against this, respondents 7 and 8 filed a o counter claim seeking eviction of 'BVP' and his tenants from the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by 'BVP' and allowed the counter claim .filed by the respondents 7 and 8. Appeals were filed against the order of trial court. Respondent 9 who was Power of Attorney holder of 'BVP' also filed ai;i appeal. During the pendency of appe.als, 'BVP' died on 15.12.2004. On 7.1.2005, each of the appellants executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of respondent 9. On the basis of Power of Attorney, respondent 9 sought for impleadment of appellants. E F On 26.4.2006, the appellants executed a Power of Attorney in favour of another person 'NMP' on the ground that respondent 9 colluded with respondent 8 and G coerced them to enter into a compromise with respondent 7 and 8. The appellants also alleged that they were threatened with dire consequences by respondent 8 and 9 and in this regard, they had lodged complaint with the police and despite this, respondent 9 entered into H 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 4 S.C.R. A consent terms with respondents 7 and 8 and thereafter submitted to the eviction decree. On 13.6.2006, High Court allowed the application filed by respondent 9. The same was not challenged by any of the tenants. 8 The· appellants filed applications before the High Court praying for recall of order dated 13.6.2006 alleging that fraud was played upon the High Court by filing the said consent terms. High Court dismi$sed the applications. Hence the app.eals. - C Dismissing the appeals, the G6urt .. · . HELD: 1 .. 1 ~; A .De~elopment · Agree~en_t dated 12.01.1994 was entered into between 'BVP' and respondent no. 9 whereby and whereunder 'BVP' had 0 transferred his rights, titl.e and interest in the suit premises in favour of respondent no. 9 for a consideration of Rs 2,00,000/-. The records showed that the said amount was ' . fully paid and ahfo that the said agreement was registered ~it,h the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.