Helen D'Souza vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11383 Bom

        Digitally
        signed by
MEGHA MEGHA
      PARAB
              S
                    Megha                                      501_fa_751_2011.doc
S     Date:
PARAB 2022.11.14
        18:45:37
        +0530

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         FIRST APPEAL NO.751 OF 2011

                    Smt. Helen D'Souza                                   ...Appellant
                                     Versus
                    Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
                    Development Authority MUIP and
                    Ors.                                               ...Respondents
                                                        ...
                    Mr. Anil Mishra for the Appellant.
                    Mr. Asif Singh for Respondent No.3
                    Mr. Kuldeep Patil for Respondent No.1.


                                               CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 10th NOVEMBER, 2022.

P.C. :-

1. The Appellant has filed this appeal challenging judgment

dated 11/02/2011 passed by City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in Small

Cause Suit No.3676 of 2007.

2. Learned counsel for the respective parties state that the

dispute is predominantly between the Appellant and Respondent No.3.

It is stated that the Appellant and Respondent No.3 have resolved the

dispute amicably. They have placed on record the consent terms, which

read thus:-

Megha 501_fa_751_2011.doc

1. The Appellant abovenamed has decided not to

proceed the above First Appeal any more and has

conceded the judgment dated 11-02-2011 passed

by the trial court in L.C. Suit no.3676 of 2007.

2. The Appellant and the respondent no.3 amicably

settled their dispute and the Appellant has

surrendered all her right, title and interest in

respect of the suit shop no.64 in favour of the

respondent no.3 abovenamed i.e. the original

plaintiff in S.C. Suit no.3676 of 2007 and in lieu

the respondent no.3 to compensate the Appellant

towards litigation cost & also sum ex-gratia

payment after due declaration and negotiation

and to avoid further litigation, the Respondent

no.3 abovenamed has agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only) to the

Appellant towards the entire claim of the

Appellant in respect of the suit shop no.64 and

the Appellant has agreed to settle her entire claim

full and final for the said amount of

Megha 501_fa_751_2011.doc

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only).

3. The Respondent no.3 has on or before the

minutes of consent paid the said amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only) by

demand draft no.26219 issued by the Axix bank,

branch-bhandup, Mumbai. The true copy of the

said demand draft is annexed and marked Ext A

to this consent term and the Appellant doth

hereby admit & acknowledge the receipt of the

said amount towards the entire claim and by way

of full and final settlement her claim.

4. The Court receiver High Court Bombay appointed

vide the order dated 30-06-2011 in C.A. no.1462

of 2011 in the above first appeal be discharge

without passing any account the court receiver

High Court Bombay be directed to handover the

possession of the suit shop situate At shop No.64,

municipal market, constructed by H.D.I.L. builder

at Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400078 to the

respondent no.3 i.e. original plaintiff in L.C. Suit

No.3676 of 2007.

Megha 501_fa_751_2011.doc

5. The Respondent no.3 undertake that he will be

liable for any dues and any maintenance charges

against the society in respect of the suit premises

i.e. shop no.64.

6. In view of the disposal of above appeal as per the

abovementioned Consent term judgment dated

11-02-2011 passed by the trial court in L.C. Suit

no.3676 of 2007 be confirmed and binding on all

the parties.

3. The consent terms are signed by the Appellant, Respondent

No.3 and their respective counsel. The Appellant and Respondent No.3

are present before the Court. They have identified their signatures on

the consent terms and have confirmed the contents of the same.

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1-and 2 state that MMRDA and

MCGM have no objection to dispose of the appeal as per the consent

terms filed by the Appellant and Respondent No.3.

4. In the light of the above, the consent terms are taken on

record and marked 'X' for identification. The statements made by the

parties are accepted as undertaking to the Court.

Megha 501_fa_751_2011.doc

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3, under instructions,

states that Respondent No.3 shall pay the charges/amount payable to

the Receiver within one week from the date of receipt of such

statement from the Receiver. Statement is accepted. The Court

Receiver shall handover possession of the suit shop to Respondent

No.3, within one week from the date of receipt of the payment, without

passing any account. The Court Receiver shall stand discharged upon

handing over of the possession of the suit shop to Respondent No.3.

6. The appeal stands disposed of as per the consent terms.

7. Pending application (s) if any, stand (s) disposed of in view

of disposal of the first appeal.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)