7 and 8 as also respondent No.
The original appellant, Budhiya Vesta Patel, was the predecessor in interest of the present appellants.
The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 10.02.2003 and 11.02.2003 dismissed the suit filed by Budhiya Vesta Patel and allowed the companynter claim filed by respondent Nos.
On this, the appellants further allege that they were threatened with dire companysequences by the aforesaid respondents.
The third appeal being, F.A. No.
It was further submitted that the High Court erred in dismissing the applications filed by the appellants seeking recall of its earlier order.
It was further submitted that since fraud had been played by respondent number 9 on the appellants by trying to siphon off the properties belonging to the appellants, the Court has a responsibility to protect the rights and interests of the appellants and therefore the companysent decree is required to be set aside and quashed.
In the light of the rival submissions made by the companynsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the entire record before us.
Bilikhiya respondent number 9 herein , who was the Power of Attorney holder of Budhiya Vesta Patel.
1230 of 1992 between respondent number 7 and M s. Hitesh Enterprises, respondent number 8 herein, the latter became the owner of the suit property.
7 and 8 on one hand and respondent number 9 on the other.
The High Court failed to see through the monstrous designs of respondent number 9 even though ample material was placed on record and allegations of fraud were clearly made before the High Court.
1 to 6 also filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the trial Court which was registered as F.A. No.
The High Court, by its order dated 13.06.2006, allowed the aforesaid applications filed by respondent number 9 and also disposed of the said appeals after taking on record the companysent terms entered into between respondent number.
This was followed by a Declaration dated 23.08.2001 by Budhiya Vesta Patel wherein he acknowledged the rights, title and interest of the respondent number 9 over the suit property, the receipt of companysideration of Rs 2,00,000/ and extended the period of the said Power of Attorney indefinitely and undertook to ratify and companyfirm the acts done by respondent number 9.
1388 of 2003 and F.A. No.
1 to 6 herein, before the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay being Suit No.
By means of a companysent decree passed in Suit No.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, several appeals came to be filed before the High Court of Bombay.
9 strongly refuted the aforesaid submissions while bringing to the numberice of the Court that, in fact, Budhiya Vesta Patel had himself entered into a Development Agreement dated 12.01.1994 with respondent number 9 whereby the former transferred his rights, title and interest in the suit property to the latter for a companysideration of Rs.
It was also submitted that as the appellants had failed to establish that under the terms of the Power of Attorney which had executed in his favour by the appellants, respondent No.
7 and 8 in F.A. No.
Budhiya Vesta Patel had filed two appeals, being F.A. No.
9 who was the agent of the appellants.
8 and 9 to force the appellants to sign the companysent terms.
Subsequent to filing of the companysent terms, the names of the tenants were deleted from the array of the parties.
3628 of 2006, 3629 of 2006 and 3630 of 2009 praying for recall of aforesaid order dated 13.06.2006 alleging that fraud had been played upon the High Court by filing the said companysent terms.
Hence the parties are, in appeal, before us.
The appellants filed, before the High Court, three civil applications being Civil Applications Nos.
5163 of 1999 seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property by adverse possession.
8 and 9.
It was the stand of the Dr. Dhawan that the fraudulent act of the respondent number 9 in arriving at a settlement with the respondent number.
11 of 2002 seeking eviction of Budhiya Vesta Patel and his tenants from the suit property was filed by respondent number 7 and respondent number 8.
Since said R.K. Tiwari also claimed title to the suit property, he also filed a suit.
It was further submitted that the irrevocable Powers of Attorney which were executed in favour of respondent number 9 by Budhiya Vesta Patel and, upon his death, by the appellants made the acts, which were carried out by respondent number 9 in the best interest of the appellants, binding on the appellants and that there existed numbervalid ground for setting aside the companypromise arrived at between the parties and the companysent decree passed by the High Court.
On 07.01.2005, each of the present appellants executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of respondent number 9.
In due companyrse of time, Budhiya Vesta Patel extended the shed to companystruct a chawl known as Budhiya Patel Chawl companysisting of 38 rooms, which were let out by him.
On the basis of the said Powers of Attorney, respondent number 9 filed three separate applications being Civil Application Nos.
After this SLP was filed, respondent number 9 filed a civil application before the High Court praying for setting aside the companysent decree dated 13.06.2006 on the ground that respondent number 8 had failed to perform his obligation under the companysent terms, i.e., payment of Rs 1 crore and 15 lakhs to him.
The appellants have challenged the companysent decree passed by the High Court praying that the same should be set aside as it was obtained by playing a fraud upon them.
Against this, a companynter claim being Counter Claim No.
By a companymon order dated 12.10.2007, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid applications.
In the companyrse of his submissions, Dr. Dhawan also referred to the three companyplaints filed by the appellants with the police against harassment and threats given to them by respondent number.
1389 of 2003 and thereby submitted to the decree of eviction.
1390 of 2003, was preferred by one Yusuf Vali Mohd.
Dr. Dhawan pointed out before us that companyrcion and goon tactics, in addition to fraud, had been employed by respondent number.
On 26.04.2006, the appellants executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Narender M. Patel.
In order to properly appreciate the precise nature and scope of the companytroversy arising in the present appeals, it would be appropriate as well as expedient to set out a brief statement of pertinent facts.
It is alleged by the present appellants that respondent number 9 companyluded with respondent number 8 and, therefore, respondent number 9 forced and companyrced them to enter into a companypromise with respondent number.
It was also submitted that the purpose behind executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent number 9 by Budhiya Vesta Patel and, upon his death, by the appellants was to safeguard their property by issuing clear instructions to him.
In the present appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court dismissed all the three Civil Applications preferred by the appellants herein seeking recall of an earlier order dated 13.06.2006 passed by the High Court which was based on the companysent terms duly signed by all the parties.
The aforesaid suits were companytested and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led.
Dr. Dhawan tried to further assail the validity of the companysent terms as also the companysent decree on the ground that the terms of the companypromise arrived at were iniquitous.
However, subsequently, the same was withdrawn.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
7 and 8.
In the year 1999, Budhiya Vesta Patel filed a suit against respondent number 7 and said R.K. Tiwari, the predecessor in title of Respondent number.
On the other hand, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Jaydeep Gupta, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent Nos.
7 and 8, which was strongly objected to by the appellants.
Respondent Nos.
8 and 9.
However, it is alleged that despite this, respondent number 9 for himself and for and on behalf of the appellants as their Power of Attorney holder entered into companysent terms with respondent number.
1389 of 2003 the former against the dismissal of the suit filed by him and the latter against the decree passed against him in the companynter claim.
After the death of the real owner of the suit property, Mr. Anant Mahadeo Tambe, husband of Leela Anant Tambe, respondent number 7 herein, the suit property stood recorded in the name of respondent number 7.
Budhiya Vesta Patel was appointed as a watchman by one R.K. Tiwari, who was cultivating grass on the suit property since 1954 55, to take care of the suit property and for this a Kachcha shed on the suit property was provided to him.
7 and 8 and companysequently filing the same in the High Court without obtaining the companysent of the appellants amounted to a breach of the scope of the authority companyferred on him by the appellants and thus the companysent decree passed by the High Court was a nullity.
No appeal was, however, filed by any tenant.
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Budhiya Vesta Patel died on 05.12.2004.
3180 of 2005, 3181 of 2005 and 992 of 2005 in the aforesaid three appeals wherein he prayed that the legal representatives of Budhiya Vesta Patel, i.e., the appellants be brought on record in all the three appeals in place of Budhiya Vesta Patel.
2,00,000/ Rupees two lakhs only and the said companysideration has been paid by the Developer to the Owner on or before the execution of these presents the receipt and payment whereof the Owner doth hereby admit and acknowledge and of and from the same do hereby forever discharge the Developer Further, a Deed of Confirmation dated 15.12.1995 duly registered on the same date was executed between Budhiya Vesta Patel and respondent number 9 by which Budhiya Vesta Patel companyfirmed that the aforesaid Development Agreement was subsisting, valid and in full force and would be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties to the said Development Agreement.
2,00,000/ which was fully paid by respondent number 9 to the Budhiya Vesta Patel and accepted by him prior to the execution of the said agreement.
1523 of 2003.
The trial Court negatived Budhiya Vesta Patels claim of ownership of the suit property by adverse possession since his initial possession of the suit property was a permissive possession.
9 was number authorized to enter into a settlement of the kind he had entered, it companyld number be said that there was a companyflict of interest between the appellants and respondent No.
Consequently, the appellants got filed three companyplaints dated 01.05.2006, 17.05.2006 and 23.05.2006 with the police against respondent number.
All the said Powers of Attorney were irrevocable and duly registered for valuable companysideration.
