IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J.
Vinesh Rashmikant Shah And Ors. – Plaintiffs
Versus
Pee Jay Traders And Ors. – Respondents
IA/55 Of 2019
Decided On : 29-11-2024
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 3 and 48 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Chamber summons for impleadment of a party and an interim application for a decree based on consent terms - The court held that the subsequent agreement of the applicant is void ab initio and does not confer any rights, thus not a necessary party to the suit. (Paras 85-90, 97-105)
(B) Consent Terms - Validity and enforceability - The court determined that the consent terms are binding and unambiguous, and the claims of the applicant do not affect the enforceability of the consent terms. (Paras 99-104)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreements for sale of flats, while the applicant sought to implead itself due to a subsequent agreement with the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's agreement was void as the defendants had no interest to transfer, and thus the applicant could not claim any rights.
Issues: Whether the applicant is a necessary party and the validity of the consent terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's agreement was void and it could not be considered a bona fide purchaser.
Result: Chamber summons dismissed; interim application partially allowed, recording the compromise in respect of certain flats.
JUDGMENT :
(R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. The Chamber Summons and the Interim Application filed in the above Suit have been heard together. By the Chamber Summons, the Applicant – M/s Zenith Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as “Zenith”) has sought impleadment in the Suit. Further, consequential relief has been sought in the Chamber Summons. By the Interim Application No. 55 of 2019 filed in the above Suit, the Plaintiffs have sought an Order from this Court under Order XXIII or Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), 1908, to pass a decree recording the compromise arrived at between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the Consent Terms signed by the parties and their Advocates, annexed at Exhibit D to the Interim Application (hereinafter referred to as “the Consent Terms”), and for directions from this Court to permit the Plaintiffs to withdraw the amount of Rs.2.70 Crores deposited by the Plaintiffs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court pursuant to an Order dated 4th July, 2018 passed by this Court, together with the accrued interest thereon.
2. It is relevant to give a brief background of facts leading up to the filing of the present Suit as well as the above Applications and relevant orders passed thereon, which are as under:
(ii) Thereafter an MoU was executed between Defendant No.2 and Zenith on 21st August, 2008 in respect of joint development of proposed construction on “B” Wing of the subject building described as “Mangal Kunj” “B” Wing CHS Limited.
(iii) An Allotment Letter was issued by Defendant No.1 in favour of Plaintiff No.1 on 11th September, 2010 allotting the complete 9th and 10th Floors of the subject building (floors under construction) in lieu of 8th and 9th floors which have been allotted earlier.
(iv) On 31st December, 2010 there were four registered Agreements for Sale executed by Defendant No.2 as Developer and Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 as Purchasers, whereby Defendant No.2 agreed to sell and transfer to Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, the Flat No.901, 902, 1001 and 1002 alongwith respective one open car parking space, at / or for the consideration and on the terms and conditions stated therein.
(v) Further, on 31st December, 2010, registered Agreement for Sale was executed by Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 as Vendors and Defendant No.2 as Purchaser, whereby Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who had been transferred Flat No.G-1 in the subject building by Defendant No.1, agreed to transfer, convey and assign the said Flat No.G-1 in favour of Defendant No.2 at or for the consideration and in the manner contained therein.
(vi) Housing Loan of Rs.2.5 Crores was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda in favour of the Plaintiffs on 18th January, 2012 in respect of purchase of the Flat Nos. 901 and 902, 1001 and 1002.
(vii) Letters dated 26th March, 2012 were addressed by Defendant No.2 giving No Objection to the Bank of Baroda giving loan to the Plaintiffs and mortgaging the Flat Nos. 901 and 902, 1001 and 1002.
(viii) The Bank of Baroda deposited / transferred on 31st March, 2012 a sum of Rs.1 Crore into bank account of Defendant No.2.
(ix) The Share Certificates bearing Nos. 14 and 15 were issued by the Society in favour of Plaintiff No.1 / Plaintiff No.2 and Plaintiff No.3 / Plaintiff No.1 respectively. Further, the Share Certificate pertaining to Flat No.G-1 was issued by the Society in favour of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2.
(x) A registered Sale Deed dated 2
Prem Kaliaandas Daryanani v. Natvarlal C. Modi & Ors
Balasaheb Manikrao Deshmukh Vs . Rama Lingoji Warthi
Kasturi Vs . Iyyamperumal & Ors.
Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.
Sumtibai & Ors. Vs. Paras Finance Co.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors
Eureka Builders & Ors. vs. Gulabchand
Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira & Ors.
Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel
Dr. Renuka Datla vs. Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. & Ors.
Jineshwar Das vs. Jagrani & Anr.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. A.D. Kumar & Ors.
HSBC Bank, USA v. Silverline Technologies Ltd. & Anr.
Important Point : A subsequent agreement for property transfer is void ab initio if the transferor lacks title, and consent terms are binding and enforceable despite claims of subsequent purchasers.
A plaintiff in a specific performance suit cannot be compelled to join a third party claiming through the same vendor, as their presence is not necessary for effective adjudication.
Subsequent purchaser protected from specific performance if bona fide for value without notice; constructive notice requires full registration proof including indexes; discretion under S.20 denies re....
An applicant seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest and right to relief concerning the controversy in a suit; absence of such a link renders the request for impleadment invalid.
The plaintiff's assertion of readiness and willingness in specific performance claims must be continuous and substantiated; the burden lies on the party contesting the agreement's legitimacy.
The court ruled that valid sales transactions were established over mere loan claims, emphasizing that contracts concerning property require mutual agreement to rescind and are enforceable as agreed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.