As a companysequence the other two numberices of Motion for vacating the order of injunction dated 1.7.1982 were allowed.
Pursuant thereto in January 1999 the Court Receiver took out a Notice of Motion No.140 of 1999 in Suit No.1578 of 1981 filed by the Respondent No.1 praying that the order of injunction made on 1.7.1982 be vacated.
Sowar Ramji Vaity died in 1965 leaving behind him four legal representatives, namely, Jagannath, Babu, Vishnu and Bhaskar.
On 1.10.1973 the Vaitys entered into an Agreement with one K.L. Danani to sell their rights and interests in the said land for a total companysideration of Rs.2 lakhs.
On 15.5.1981 the Vaitys terminated the Agreement dated 18.6.1979 with M s Modern Development Corporation Limited.
As his companytribution towards the partnership firm K.L. Danani brought the benefits of the said Agreement dated 1.10.1973 to the partnership firm.
On 14.9.1981 the Bombay High Court restrained the Vaitys and the partners of M s Modern Development Corporation Limited from selling, transferring or further parting with possession of the suit lands.
Such termination was followed by Suit No.1578 of 1981 instituted by the respondent No.1 on 7.9.1981 against the Vaitys and the partners of M s Modern Development Corporation Limited for specific performance of the Agreements allegedly executed on 18.6.1979 and 24.8.1979.
745 of 2001 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Clause 12 of the said Agreement required Modern Development Corporation to obtain companyfirmation from M s Thakkar and Associates that there was numbersubsisting Agreement for sale in their favour in respect of the property agreed to be sold.
2573 OF 2008 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.2328 of 2007 ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
By its order dated 6.5.1998 the Bombay High Court passed a decree in Suit No.252 of 1980 on the basis of the companysent terms filed by the parties to the suit.
M s Modern Development Corporation, in their turn entered into an Agreement with Kiran Construction Company, the respondent No.1 herein, to transfer its beneficial interest in the suit land, except for Sl.
On Notice of Motion No.283 of 1980 filed by the appellant and K.B.Thakkar in Suit No.252 of 1980, K.L. Danani gave an undertaking number to part with the possession of the suit land pending disposal of the Notice of Motion.
In other words, companyld the appellant herein, who had acquired an independent right in the suit property by way of a separate decree but was number a party to the agreement between the respondent No.1 and M s Modern Development Corporation, be added as a party in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 and whether the decree passed in his favour companyld be assailed by the respondent No.1 in his suit for specific performance.
1578 of 1981 from selling, transferring, encumbering the suit property forming the subject matter of the Agreement dated 18.6.1979 entered into by the Vaitys with M s. Modern Development Corporation Limited.
Notice of Motion No.1271 of 1981 on which the above restraint order was passed was heard on 1.7.1982 and the Vaitys were restrained during the pendency of the Suit No.
On 12.6.1979 the Government of Maharashtra executed a lease in favour of the Vaitys for a total term of 60 years.
Under the companysent decree the Court Receiver was entrusted to discharge certain functions which had been agreed upon and recorded in the companysent decree.
B.K. Thakkar, the appellant herein, who was then a minor, was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm.
By virtue of the said decree, the Vaitys, inter alia, admitted that an Agreement had been executed on 1.10.1973 in favour of K.L. Danani and that M s Swas Construction Company was placed in possession of the suit lands on 3.8.1975.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In between April and June 1974, Mr. K.L. Danani companystituted a partnership firm with one Mr. K.B. Thakkar and S.S. Thakkar under the name of M s Swas Construction Company.
On 18.2.1980 the present appellant Bharat K. Das Thakkar and K.B. Thakkar filed Suit No.252 of 1980 in the Bombay High Court against K.L. Danani and S.S. Thakkar seeking a declaration that a partnership had subsisted between them and that L. Danani and S.S. Thakkar have retired from Swas Construction Company, and, in the alternative, for an order of dissolution of partnership, accounts, companyts and other reliefs.
In 1976, with the enactment of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, K.L. Danani claiming to be in possession of the lands in question under the Agreement dated 1.10.1973 filed a statement as required under Section 6 1 of the aforesaid Act.
During the pendency of the suit the respondent No.1 took out Chamber Summons No.1203 of 2000 in his suit seeking to amend the plaint by joining the respondent No.13 to 19 as defendants and to also challenge the companysent decree passed by the Bombay High Court in Suit No.252 of 1980 on 6.5.1998.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.6.2001, the respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.
The said Notice of Motion No.283 of 1980 was finally disposed of on 9.10.1980 and a Court Receiver was appointed by the Bombay High Court and put into possession of the suit lands.
Clause 14 of the Agreement mentioned the fact that the Vaitys had entered into an Agreement to sell the said lands to M s Thakkar and Associates.
During pendency of the said suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1, all the parties to Suit No.252 of 1980 arrived at a companyprehensive settlement which was reduced into companysent terms which were filed in the said suit pending before the Bombay High Court.
On 27.5.1949 one Sowar Ramji Vaity was given a grant by the Collector of Thane, which entitled him to lease of the lands in Serial Nos.83 91 in village Mulund for a term of 999 years.
On 25.8.1999 the Vaitys also took out Notice of Motion No.2700 of 1999 in the aforesaid suit for the same relief.
Soon, thereafter, on 18.6.1979 the Vaitys entered into another Agreement with M s Modern Development Corporation granting them development rights over the same properties.
The High Court dismissed the Chamber Summons No.1203 of 2003 filed by the respondent No.1 in his suit and also vacated the injunction granted on 1.7.1982.
No.91, in favour of the said respondent No.1.
