Disposed

Vaibhav v.Sawant v. Abdul Karim U.Merchant and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2010S/1166/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff seeks declaration that termination of 2000 agreement and notice of termination are illegal and non-binding, plus specific performance and direction to defendants to execute and register sale deed.

What did the court decide?

declaration that termination of agreement and notice are illegal and non-binding; decree for specific performance; direction to execute and register sale deed

Vaibhav v.Sawant Vs Abdul Karim U.Merchant and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 1166 OF 2003

¶5

Vaibhav Vijay Sawant...Plaintiff
vs.

¶6

Abdul Karim Umer Merchant & Anr....Defendants

¶7

Mrs.Mugdha M. Jadhav for the Plaintiff.

¶8

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶9

DATED : JANUARY 19, 2010

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1Heard Counsel for the plaintiff. None

¶12

appears on behalf of the defendants though they are

¶13

served. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of

¶14

service dated 29th February, 2008. The plaintiff has

¶15

also filed affidavit in lieu of evidence dated 24th

¶16

November, 2009 and list of documents on which
reliance is placed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff

¶17

has also filed Original Agreement for Sale dated 29th

¶18

February, 2000 between the defendant and the

¶19

¶20

plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit

¶21

for a declaration that the Termination of the
Agreement dated 29th February, 2000 and Notice of
termination by the defendants are illegal, unlawful
and not binding on the plaintiff and for a decree
for Specific Performance of the said Agreement dated

¶22

29th February, 2000 and for a direction to the

¶23

defendants to execute and register the Sale Deed in
accordance with Order 21 Rule 34.

¶24

2The case of the plaintiff is that the

¶25

defendants by Agreement dated 29th February, 2000
(hereinafter referred to is �the said Agreement�)

¶26

agreed to sell and transfer to the plaintiff all the

¶27

rights, title and interest in respect of the land
more particularly described in the plaint and in the
schedule annexed to the plaint for a total sum of

¶28

Rs.7 lakhs. According to the plaintiff, one

¶29

Mrs.Tanvi Girish Vaidya by Deed of Conveyance dated
30th March, 1982 purchased the suit land and was put
in possession by the vendors. Defendant no.1 made

¶30

¶31

an attempt to enter upon the suit land claiming that

¶32

he is the owner of the suit land. Suit was filed by
the owner against the defendant being defendant no.1
claiming permanent injunction against defendant no.1

¶33

in the suit. Interim protection was granted 1st
October, 1984 and was confirmed in the appeal.
According to the plaintiff, his father intervened in

¶34

the dispute and the matter was settled and
accordingly, Consent Terms were filed between the
original owner and defendant no.1 to the said suit.
Thereafter, Agreement dated 29th February, 2000 was
executed between the plaintiff and the defendants.

¶35

An Agreement was affirmed by the defendants and copy
of which was given to the plaintiff in which the
defendants agreed to make out a marketable title to
the property and admitted that they had 2/3rd
undivided share in the suit property. In view of the

¶36

said agreement, the plaintiff agreed to pay the
balance amount. The cheque was issued by the

¶37

plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs which was encashed
by the defendants. The defendants, however, did not

¶38

¶39

execute the Conveyance Deed in spite of plaintiff
showing his willingness to pay the balance
consideration. The plaintiff, therefore, has filed
the present suit. Suit is filed within limitation.
The date for performance of the contract was fixed

¶40

on 28th April, 2000. Suit has been filed on 21st
March, 2003. Property is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court

¶41

has jurisdiction to try the suit since the
defendants have not appeared and filed the written
statement in spite of service of writ of summons.
The plaintiff is entitled for a judgment and decree
in view of Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.

¶42

3 Suit of the plaintiff, accordingly, is
decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).
The plaintiff also would be entitled to get costs of
the suit. Suit, accordingly, is disposed of.

¶43

4Certified copy expedited.

Vaibhav v.Sawant v. Abdul Karim U.Merchant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav v.Sawant v. Abdul Karim U.Merchant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dena Bank Vs Laxmidas Velji and Co.

Jayanat Pardiwala Vs Janamadhyama Prakashana Ltd.

Neela Trust and Anr. Vs Smt. Pratibha P. Prabhu andORS

Jay Bhavin Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sushil M. Krishanani and Ors.

Shatrunjay Extrusions Ltd. Vs Zen Securities and Finance (P) Ltd.

Ravindra B. Tank Vs M/S Vinit Nirman and 2 Ors.