The settlement which is recorded in terms of the decree by way of impugned order is between the parties to the consent terms, says SC

Last updated: 10 March 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court has ruled that a settlement, even if recorded by a court order, is only binding on the parties who actually signed the consent terms. This appeal concerned a property dispute where the appellants were not signatories to the consent order that was later upheld by the Bombay High Court. The court clarified that the consent order's effect is limited to those who agreed to it.

Court :
Supreme Court of India

Brief :
The present Civil Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 558 / 2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the Consent Order dated 16.02.2005 in Suit No. 1335 / 1988 to which the appellants are not the signatory to the proceedings.

Citation :
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 946 OF 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 946 OF 2016

M/S. CHITRALEKHA BUILDERS &
ANR. THROUGH ANIL G. SHAH
POWER OF ATTORNEY & HUSBAND
OF THE PARTNER …APPELLANTS

Versus

G.I.C. EMPLOYEES SONAL VIHAR
CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 558 / 2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the Consent Order dated 16.02.2005 in Suit No. 1335 / 1988 to which the appellants are not the signatory to the proceedings.

2. The lis pertains to land admeasuring 5082 square yards bearing Survey No. 218, CTS No. 727 situated in Village Mulund, Greater Bombay. The background facts of this litigation are briefly stated as follows :

(i) An Agreement to Sell dated 28.04.1980 was executed between Defendant Nos. 1 to 52-Vaity family and the Plaintiff-M/s. Chitralekha Builders (then comprising of one Kusum Gorule and Tukaram Baliram Nalwade), whereby the Vaity family undertook to execute a Deed of Conveyance in favour of Chitralekha Builders, or its nominees, on receipt of Rs.35,00,000 towards the balance consideration.

(ii) On 09.05.1980, M/s. Chitralekha Builders entered into an Agreement with a Society viz. G.I.C. Sonal Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.-Respondent No.1 herein, whereby it was agreed that Chitralekha Builders would develop the suit property, and the constructed area would be given to the Society after development.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The Supreme Court ruled that a settlement recorded by a decree is binding only on the parties who signed the consent terms.

The case involved M/s. Chitralekha Builders & Anr. as appellants and G.I.C. Employees Sonal Vihar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. as respondents.

The dispute concerned a piece of land measuring 5082 square yards in Mulund, Greater Bombay, following an Agreement to Sell and a subsequent development agreement.

No, the appellants were not signatories to the consent order dated 16.02.2005, which was the subject of the appeal.

The Bombay High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the consent order.