Dismissed

Gafoor Yakub Kazi and Anr. v. Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2008SA/608/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Civil) dismissed the second appeal. The court held that a substantive question of law did not arise since the consent deed by a co-owner confirms the validity of the impugned sale deed, warranting the setting aside of the trial court decree.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decree of the Appellate Court was restored.

Gafoor Yakub Kazi and Anr. Vs Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.608 OF 2007

¶3

 Gafoor Yakub Kazi & Anr.

¶4

 Gafoor Yakub Kazi & Anr....Appellants
vs.
Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi & Ors....Respondents

¶5

Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Appellants

¶6

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : JANUARY 30, 2008.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellants. The appellants are the

¶9

 original plaintiffs. The Appellants are the co-owners of the
 suit property. According to the case of the Appellants, the
 defendants by practising fraud obtained a registered sale

¶10

deed from the first Appellant on 9th November 1995. A suit

¶11

 was filed by the Appellants-plaintiffs for setting aside the
 said sale deed. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In

¶12

 an Appeal preferred by the Respondents-defendants, the
 Appellate Court has interfered. The Appellate Court has
 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that
 during the pendency of the suit, the Appellant No.2 executed a
 registered consent deed dated 1st July 2000 confirming that
 the second Appellant (second plaintiff) was consenting to the
 sale deed dated 9th November 1995 executed by the first
 Appellant.

¶13

 2. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellants
 is that the alleged consent deed dated 1st July 2000 itself
 records that it is without consideration. He submitted that
 mere execution of the consent deed by the second Appellant

¶14

-2-

¶15

will not amount to transfer and sale of right, title and
 interest of the second Appellant in the suit property in
 favour of the Respondents. He emphasised on the fact that the
 consent deed is without consideration.

¶16

 3. I have considered the submissions. The consent deed dated
 1st July 2000 has been allegedly executed by the second
 Appellant during the pendency of the suit. The second
 Appellant was all along aware that the said consent deed was
 set up as a defence by the Respondents. In spite of that no
 amendment was carried out by the Appellants to the plaint for
 challenging the consent deed.

¶17

 4. The Appellate Court found that the registered consent deed
 has been executed by the second plaintiff. Perusal of the
 said consent deed shows that the second plaintiff has recorded
 her consent to the sale of the suit property by the first
 plaintiff. In view of what is stated in the consent deed
 which was duly proved, the Appellate court has set aside the
 decree passed by the trial court. In the said consent deed,
 one of the plaintiffs i.e. the second Appellant has confirmed
 the execution of the sale deed by the first Appellant. The
 said sale deed was itself the subject matter of the suit filed
 by the Appellants.

¶18

 5. Considering these aspects, no substantial question of law
 arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

-3-

¶20

JUDGE

Gafoor Yakub Kazi and Anr. v. Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gafoor Yakub Kazi and Anr. v. Kamruddin Dagadu Kazi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shrikant Ashok Patil and Othrs

Khanderao Punja Khandbahale Vs Motiram Punja Khandbhale

The Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik Vs M/S. Glindia Limited

Shyamsunder Shivchandrai Ruia Vs Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Shri. Jitendra Shyamlal Gupta and Anr.

Ibrahim Razzak Chaudhari Vs Mumbai Municipal Corpn. of Gr.Bombay