Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APP.109.2013
C
ou
rt
ig
h
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.771 OF 2013
IN
APPEAL (L) NO.783 OF 2012
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2133 OF 2012
IN
SUIT NO.462 OF 2010
Appellant
om
ba
y
Respondents
: 20 September 2013
2 of 19
1.
C
ou
rt
APP.109.2013
The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and
on the request of the learned counsel.
ig
h
2.
ba
y
om
originally belong to the Appellant and his father each having an equal
share. After the death of the father, the share of the father devolved
equally on four co-sharers who are parties to these proceedings. The
Appellant claims to have acquired besides his 12.5 per cent share in
the interest of the father, further interests of 12.5 per cent each of the
3 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
Deccan Chambers, both the Appellant and the First Respondent hold
equal shares.
5.
ig
h
parties entered upon negotiations, during the course of which the First
Respondent paid over to the Appellant an amount of Rs.48.00 lakhs
by an RTGS entry on 12 November 2011. The case of the First
ba
y
om
4 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
ig
h
2012, when the suit appeared before Karnik, J., the following order
was passed by the Court :
om
ba
y
6.
was made on behalf of the Appellant that "the consent terms are not
ready." Since this Court would have to proceed on the basis of the
record, as it stands, it is evident that the statement which was made on
behalf of the Appellant, was not controverted by the First Respondent
when the order dated 4 January 2012 came to be passed.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed that the suit was
removed from the board and shall be placed on board according to its
turn.
5 of 19
rt
7.
APP.109.2013
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
Single Judge has allowed the Motion and has decreed the suit by
recording the terms of the compromise.
om
9.
submits that :
(i)
6 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
was reflected in the consent terms in the amount of Rs.48.00 lakhs for
(iii)
ig
h
borne out by the fact that even after the execution of the consent
terms on 5 December 2011, when the suit appeared before Karnik, J.
on 4 January 2012, an adjournment was granted on the statement of
ba
y
The First
om
January 2012, the parties proceeded on the basis that the consent
terms were not ready for being filed in Court as a basis of a decree on
compromise;
(iv)
7 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
ig
h
the ready reckoner which is prepared for the purposes of stamp duty.
The learned Single Judge allowed a depreciation of 60% in respect of
the value of the Himgiri flat computed at the value in the ready
ba
y
The
Himgiri flat in which the Appellant has an 87.5 per cent share is a sea
facing flat in a prime location at Peddar Road and it will be
om
8 of 19
rt
APP.109.2013
On these grounds, it has been urged that the procedure which has been
C
ou
the CPC and the impugned judgment would have to be set aside and
the Motion restored for a disposal afresh.
10.
(i)
ig
h
Respondent that :
Both the consent terms dated 1 December 2011 and 5
ba
y
om
Appellant did not set up any case to the effect that an amount of
Rs.1.00 crore was required to be paid in cash to secure the interest of
the Appellant and the Second and Third Respondents;
(iv)
returned by the learned Single Judge was because the Court had an
9 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
justified in proceeding with the matter in the manner that the Court
has proceeded because the Court found the basis of the terms to be
ig
h
just and equitable having regard to the valuation of the share of the
Appellant.
12.
ba
y
11.
(1)
...
...
...
(2)
...
...
...
om
"ORDER
XXIII
WITHDRAWAL
ADJUSTMENT OF SUITS :
AND
10 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
11 of 19
rt
13.
APP.109.2013
C
ou
others2 as follows :
ig
h
(i)
No appeal is maintainable against a consent
decree having regard to the specific bar contained in
Section 96(3) CPC.
ba
y
om
2 Air-2006-SC-2628
12 of 19
rt
14.
APP.109.2013
C
ou
consent terms stipulated that the First Respondent who held a half
share in the residential flat at Deccan Chambers, would relinquish his
share. Similarly, the Appellant-Plaintiff who held an 87.5 per cent
share in the Himgiri Flat at Pedder Road, would relinquish his share
to the First Respondent. The First Respondent was to pay an amount
ig
h
been paid). The consent terms also stipulated that two properties at
Kumbhat in the State of Gujarat would be allocated, one to each of
the two brothers, after the lifetime of the mother. On 2 December
2011 the consent terms were admittedly not taken on record by the
Court. The case of the First Respondent is that the learned Single
Judge declined to accept the consent terms since one of the clauses
ba
y
om
Rs.48.00 lakhs by the First Respondent to the Appellant, that did not
reflect the true value of his interest which was approximately Rs.1.50
crores. According to the Appellant, at the relevant point of time, the
First Respondent had agreed with all the members of the family
including the Second and the Third Respondents that over and above
the amount mentioned in the consent terms, a payment of Rs.1.00
crore would be made to the Appellant which would be shared between
the Appellant and the Second and the third Respondent (the mother
and the sister).
Respondent agreed that since he did not immediately have the funds
13 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
the mother and the sister in the course of the proceedings before the
learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the affidavit reads as
follows :
ba
y
ig
h
15.
om
14 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
correct record of what had transpired in the Court. The order of the
Court, it is well settled, must be regarded and treated as reflecting a
C
ou
correct record of what has transpired during the course of the hearing
ig
h
the suit now would have to proceed in the normal course for the
purpose of adjudication. The First Respondent took out a Motion
before the learned Single Judge for recording the terms of the
ba
y
16.
om
15 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
C
ou
upon the parties to produce the Ready Reckoner. All this admittedly
took place during the course of the hearing on 28 September 2012
when the order was passed by the Court allowing the Motion. In fact,
the learned Single Judge has recorded in paragraph 25 that the Court
called upon the parties to show the Ready Reckoner of 2011 for the
ig
h
om
ba
y
"25. It was also argued that the amount paid off was
only a pittance and did not represent the Plaintiff's share
at all. The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a
much larger share. At 2 separate places in his affidavitin-reply he has stated that the value of his share is
Rs.1.5 crores and Rs.3 crores. It, therefore, required the
Court to consider the valuation of the two properties
which the parties decided to partition in the aforesaid
mode by buy-off/sell-off mode. The court, therefore,
called upon the parties to show the ready reckoner of
2011 to see whether the valuation is even reasonably
accurate as per the market rate determined by the
Stamp authority. Defendant No.1 has not only
produced the ready reckoner, but Counsel on behalf of
Defendant no.1 has meticulously set out the precise
valuation as per the rules of the stamp authority set out
in the ready reckoner for both the properties of the
parties in Mumbai."
(emphasis supplied)
16 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
of both the flats namely of the Himgiri flat and the Deccan Chamber
flat. The value of the Himgiri flat was determined at Rs.2.11 crores
the building has been constructed in 1962.
17.
C
ou
ig
h
value and the rate of depreciation, if any, are matters of valuation and
hence of evidence. This is not an exercise which can be carried out
suo motu by the Court without evidence under Order XXIII Rule 3 of
ba
y
om
learned Single Judge observed that the difference in the valuation for
by-off/sell-off was Rs.38.12 lakhs, against which the Appellant had
17 of 19
APP.109.2013
rt
been paid off Rs.48.00 lakhs. The whole basis on which this part of
the reasoning has been arrived at is to say the least conjectural and
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
questions to the interpreter and to act on the basis of the replies given
by her without giving the parties an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness.
19.
18 of 19
APP.109.2013
set aside.
rt
C
ou
2012 to the file of learned Single Judge for a decision afresh after
permitting parties to lead evidence on the question as to whether a
lawful compromise was arrived at between them, as reflected in the
20.
ig
h
that in terms of the statement which has been made in the memo of
ba
y
rights and interest of the First Respondent that in that event, it would
be appropriate that the amount be deposited in the Court with interest
in view of the fact that the amount was paid over to the Appellant on
om
12 November 2011. The counsel for the Appellant states that the
money has been invested in a fixed deposit carrying interest at the rate
of 9.5 per cent per annum. We accordingly direct that the Appellant
shall, in terms of the statement made before the Court, deposit
Rs.48.00 lakhs together with interest accrued thereon till date with the
Prothonotary and Senior Master within a period of two weeks from
today. The amount so deposited shall be invested by the Prothonotary
and Senior Master in fixed deposit of a nationalized bank to abide by
further orders of the learned Single Judge.
19 of 19
rt
21.
APP.109.2013
22.
C
ou
Similarly, no
23.
ig
h
ba
y
direct that in consequence of the order of remand that has been passed
today, further proceedings before the learned Single Judge shall be
om
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
MST