Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai vs Rajinder Singh

Q: Key Points

Conclusion of the Case: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the consent decree dated 18.7.2001 passed by the trial court. (!) (!) (!) Key Holdings: - No appeal lies against a consent decree under Section 96(3) CPC; the proper remedy is an application under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 before the court that passed it. (!) (!) (!) - The compromise satisfied Order 23 Rule 3 (first part): statements by authorized counsel, recorded on oath, read over, and signed, constitute a valid "agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties." (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000365360019] - It fell under the first part of Rule 3 (future undertaking to vacate by 22.1.2002 and pay rent), not the second part (completed satisfaction). [1000365360015] - Counsel was duly authorized via vakalatnama; no challenge to counsel's integrity. [1000365360019] (!) Reliefs Granted: - Consent decree stands, executable for possession. - Landlords entitled to mesne profits from 22.1.2002 until delivery of possession. - Appellant to pay costs of Rs.25,000/-. (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 592

B.P.SINGH, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Conclusion of the Case:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the consent decree dated 18.7.2001 passed by the trial court. (!) (!) (!)

Key Holdings: - No appeal lies against a consent decree under Section 96(3) CPC; the proper remedy is an application under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 before the court that passed it. (!) (!) (!) - The compromise satisfied Order 23 Rule 3 (first part): statements by authorized counsel, recorded on oath, read over, and signed, constitute a valid "agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties." (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000365360019] - It fell under the first part of Rule 3 (future undertaking to vacate by 22.1.2002 and pay rent), not the second part (completed satisfaction). [1000365360015] - Counsel was duly authorized via vakalatnama; no challenge to counsel's integrity. [1000365360019] (!)

Reliefs Granted: - Consent decree stands, executable for possession. - Landlords entitled to mesne profits from 22.1.2002 until delivery of possession. - Appellant to pay costs of Rs.25,000/-. (!)

JUDGMENT

R. V. Raveendran, J. — Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.2004 passed by learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in FA No.247 of 2003.

2. Respondents 1 & 2 are the landlords of the suit property (front portion of residential premises no. C-25, Friends Colony, New Delhi). Respondents 1 & 2 and their father Late Brig. S. Rameshwar let out the suit property with the fittings and fixtures to M/s Usha Fisheries Agriculture and Dairy Farm, a partnership firm (third respondent herein) for a period of three years under a registered lease deed dated 6.6.1979, the purpose being the residential use of a partner of the firm. Pushpa Devi (mother of the appellant) and respondents 4, 5 & 6 were its partners. The suit property was being used by Pushpa Devi for her residential use. The tenancy was continued after the lease term of three years.

3. The landlords (Respondents 1 & 2 and their father) terminated the said tenancy as at the end of 31.3.1989 by notice dated 9.2.1989 and filed a suit against the firm and Pushpa Devi in the court of the District Judge, Delhi on 10.4.1989 for recovery of the possession of the suit property. It was originally numbered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 592

B.P.SINGH, R.V.RAVEENDRANPushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai – AppellantVersusRajinder Singh – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

B.P.SINGH, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Sadhna Rai – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh – Respondent