Allowed

Amrutlal Himmatmal Jain v. Madhav Narayan Sahane (Deceased Thru Lrs)and Others

Bombay HC22 Apr 2024CAS/974/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a property dispute, the court accepted an agreed settlement amount of Rs.3 lakhs between the parties. Consequently, the original decree was modified to reflect this settlement, and the appeal was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the decree to record the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- by the appellant and extinguishment of mutual claims regarding the suit property.

Amrutlal Himmatmal Jain Vs Madhav Narayan Sahane (Deceased… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

6_sa_76_2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.76 OF 2021
W ITH

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.974 OF 2019
IN

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO.76 OF 2021

¶6

Amrutlal Himmatmal Jain

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Madhav Narayan Shahane (since deceased )
(a) Sudha Madhav Shahane and Ors....Respondents

¶10

Mr. Darshit Jain for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Drupad Patil for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶11

Ms Suvarna Yadav i/b. Ms Rekha Musale for Respondent Nos.1a to 1d, 5
and 6.

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶13

 DATED : 22 APRIL 2024.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1.This appeal is filed challenging the Decree dated 17 August
2017 in Civil Appeal No.267 of 2012. The first Appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal and has partly confirmed the decree dated 24 April
2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Special Civil
Suit No.20 of 2006.

¶16

2.The Trial Court had partly decreed the Suit. While rejecting
the Plaintiff’s prayer for specific performance of the agreement dated 6
October 2004, the Trial Court directed Defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay the

¶17

Digitally signed byMEGHA MEGHASHREEDHAR SHREEDHARPARAB PARAB Date: 2024.04.23 17:51:43 +0530

Megha

1/3

6_sa_76_2021

Plaintiff an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages. The Decree rejecting
specific performance has been upheld by the first Appellate Court.
However, on filing of cross objection by Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the first
Appellate Court set aside the direction for payment of damages to the
extent of Rs.50,000/- while confirming the rest of the Decree.

¶22

3.After arguing the appeal for some time Mr. Jain, the learned
counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.7 and 8, Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
and Ms Musale, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6, it is
agreed that the disputes between the parties can be amicably resolved if
Respondent Nos.7 and 8 pay to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-,
on receipt of which the Appellant-Plaintiff shall give up his claims in
respect of the suit property against all Respondents. Accordingly, Mr.
Patil, has handed over a Demand Draft for Rs.3,00,000/- to Mr. Jain.

¶23

4.In view of the agreement prevailing between the parties, the
impugned Decree passed by the Trial Court and first Appellate Court shall
stand modified to the extent that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive
Rs.3,00,000/- towards his claim in respect of the suit property. Demand
Draft for an amout of Rs.3,00,000/- is paid by Respondent Nos.7 and 8 to
the Plaintiff, receipt whereof is acknowledged by the Plaintiff. In that view
of the matter, the Plaintiff shall not have any claim in respect of the suit
property against any of the Respondents. Similarly, none of the
Respondents shall have any claim against the Plaintiffs.

Megha

2/3

6_sa_76_2021

5. With above directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

6. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and accordingly disposed of.

¶29

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶30

Megha

¶31

3/3

Amrutlal Himmatmal Jain v. Madhav Narayan Sahane (Deceased Thru Lrs)and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrutlal Himmatmal Jain v. Madhav Narayan Sahane (Deceased Thru Lrs)and Others

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

S D Corporation Private Limited vs the State Maharashtra through Its Dept of Finance and Revenue

Gangadhar Sonu Sonawane,Deceased and Ors. Vs Namdeo Bhausingh Sonawane and Ors.

Danfoss Systems Limited Vs Johnson Gomes

New Manoday Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Uday Madhavrao Jagtap

Vikram Trimbak Pawar Vs Technocrat Construction Proprietor Pradip Manohar Kondnani

Shri.Prabhakar Dattatray Kshirsagar Vs Shri.Ramakant Dattatray Kshirsagar and Others