Remanded

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013RA/5/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed review applications challenging a compromise decree in Second Appeal No. 261/ 2000. The court set aside the compromise order dated 22/12/2010, restoring the second appeal to its original position. The bench held that appellants failed to disclose sale deeds executed pendente lite, thus invalidating the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22/12/2010 in Second Appeal No. 261/2000 set aside and the appeal restored to original position.

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 4.2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2000 WITH

¶4

Iqbal S/o Kalubhai Shaikh,

& others

.. Applicants

Versus

Smt. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande, & others .

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate for applicants Shri N.K. Kakade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 Shri P.B. Vikhe Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 11

¶11

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2000

¶12

Shri Bhagwat S/o Sarangdhar Sadaphal ... Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Smt. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande, & others

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Shri V.D. Sapkal & P.B. Vikhe Patil, Advocates for applicant Shri N.K. Kakade, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7 & 8.

¶17

2 4.2013

¶18

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2013.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

. Both these review applications are filed for setting aside the order dated 13/12/2010 passed in Second Appeal No. 261/2000, whereby the Second Appeal was disposed of on terms of compromise, and decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.

¶21

Shri P.R. Patil and Shri V.D. Sapkal learned counsel for the review applicants submit that the appellants in Second Appeal 261/2000 had sold 11 R land and 69 R land respectively on 22/11/1994 and thereafter, subsequent sale-deeds have been effected by the purchasers, during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶22

According to the learned counsel, the said compromise was fraudulent. The appellants did not bring it to the notice of this Court the sale-deeds executed by them on 22/11/1994. The appellants did not have right, title and interest to enter into the compromise in respect of 11 R land, so also 69 R land sold by them vide registered sale-deeds. As such, they request to set

¶23

3 4.2013

¶24

aside the compromise.

¶25

Shri Kakade, learned counsel for the original appellants in the Second Appeal submits that the said sale-deeds were not in fact out and out sale-deeds but were security documents. No title had passed on the basis of sale-deeds dated 22/11/1994. The said sale-deeds are executed during the pendency of the proceedings, as such sale-deeds are hit by principles of lis pendence. The purchasers Pendente lite do not have any right to make a grievance. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of this Court in a case of Mohd. Osman S/o Pirsab V. Dr. Devid s/o Premkumar D.F. Sundersing; reported in 2011 (2) ALL MR 315.

¶26

Shri Hon, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also submits that the respondents in the Second Appeal are not bound by any transaction entered into by the appellants and the third party. In view of principles of lis pendence, the transferee Pendente lite would be bound by Judgment and decree passed. Even otherwise, the review applicants could not have filed present review applications as under Section 47, they have raised all sorts of objections. The present review applications need not be considered.

¶27

4 4.2013

¶28

Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise, decree is drawn in terms of compromise. As far as the respondents are concerned they can agitate the ground of lis pendence. However, the same would not be available to the appellants who themselves have sold the property by register sale-deeds. The decree is directed to be drawn in the Second Appeal as compromise decree. A compromise decree is nothing but a contract between the parties super imposed with the seal of the Court. The appellants ought to have brought it to the notice of the Court that they have sold part of the property vide registered sale-deed on 22/11/1994, the appellants have failed to do so. The transferees’ of the appellants would be representative in interest of the appellants to the extent of property sold by appellants even as per Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the review applications this Court would not be called upon to dilate or pass any order about the nature of the said saledeed. The judgment which is relied by the learned counsel would not be relevant in the present conspectus of the matter.

¶29

Considering the above, the order dated 22/12/2010 deserves to be reviewed and is hereby reviewed. The order dated

¶30

5 4.2013

¶31

22/12/2010 passed in Second Appeal No. 261/2000 is set aside. The Second Appeal No. 261/2000 is restored to its original position.

¶32

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶33

SDM*/April-13.

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal v. Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasaheb Jagannath Adhav Vs Shobha Balasaheb Adhav

Barku Devrao Kachare Vs Chandrabhaga Vishnu Kachare and Ors.

Latif Nandkumar Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amarsing Digambar Jadhav Vs Manoj @ Manojkumar Shamsundar Jadhav and Ors.

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde Vs Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Sarita Dhanraj Gavhale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.