IMPORTANT POINT
Mere Letters of Allotment do not confer ownership rights under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, and parties may compromise their claims in a Suit without the consent of non-signatory parties if no legal rights are infringed.

JUDGMENT

Arif S. Doctor, J. - The present Appeal impugns an order dated 22nd February 2024, by which the Learned Judge has disposed of the captioned Suit, i.e., Suit No.134 of 2009 ('the said Suit') in terms of Consent Terms dated 13th February 2024 ('the said Consent Terms'), entered into between Respondent Nos.1 to 35 on the one hand and Respondent Nos.40 to 44 on the other hand. Respondent Nos.1 to 35 are the Plaintiffs in the said Suit and are hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos.40 to 44 who are Defendant Nos.8 to 11 to the said Suit and are hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/Developers. The Appellants are Defendant Nos.1 to 3 to the captioned Suit.

2. The said Suit has been filed by Respondent/Plaintiffs inter alia seeking a declaration that they are the purchasers of certain units in a proposed commercial building complex known as 'Sharda Complex', to be built on land bearing Survey No.41-part (1)(B), CTS No.444, 444/1, 444/2 and 445 situated at Swami Vivekanand Road, Village Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400 102 ('the said plot'). The Respondent/Plaintiffs have based their claim inter alia on certain Letters of Allotment ('LOAs') issued to them by the Appellants. It is not in dispute that the Appellants subsequent to issuing the said Letters of Allotment had also entered into development agreements initially with Respondent Nos.36 to 39 and thereafter a Joint Venture Agreement ('JVA') dated 10th May 2001 with the Respondent/ Developers by and under which the Respondent/Developers were to construct upon the said plot and deliver possession of the various units in respect of which the LOAs were issued by the Appellants. Since despite the passage of considerable time, the Respondent/Plaintiffs did not receive their units, they filed the captioned Suit against inter alia the Appellants, Respondent Nos.36 to 39 and the Respondent/Developers collectively in their capacity as Promoters under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 ('MOFA') and accordingly sought the discharge of their obligations as Promoters. During the course of the said Suit, the Respondent/ Plaintiffs had taken out a Notice of Motion in which the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay came to be appointed as Receiver in respect of the said plot as also to remove certain encroachment on the said plot. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 22nd March 2001 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEMA'), the said plot was infact stood forfeited in favour of the Central Government. The said order was challenged by the affected parties before the Appellate Tribunal, which inter alia remanded the matter back to the competent authority under SAFEMA. By the order of the competent authority dated 10th October 2018, possession of the said plot was restored to the Respondent/Developers and only the interests of the Appellants under the said JVA stood forfeited. It is in this backdrop that the Respondent/Plaintiffs and the Respondent/Developers have entered into the said Consent Terms.

3. Mr. Chinoy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants at the outset submitted that the very basis of the claim of the Respondent/Plaintiffs in the said Suit was misconceived, since the same was admittedly based only upon LOAs and not any Agreement/s, much less registered agreements under the provisions of MOFA. He submitted that it was well settled that mere LOAs would not confer any right upon the Respondent/Plaintiffs under the provisions of MOFA. He then submitted that in any event, the Appellants were disputing the said LOAs and therefore the question of the Respondent/ Plaintiffs making any claim on the basis of the said LOAs did not arise.

4. Mr. Chinoy then submitted that the Appellants had terminated the JVA, basis which the Respondent/Developers were claiming the right to develop the said plo