[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bharat Shantila Shah And Anr vs The Royal Palms (Indai) Pvt Ltd And 3 Ors on 15 April, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
10-S-1186-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 1186 OF 2007
BHARAT SHANTILAL SHAH AND ANOTHER )...PLAINTIFFS
V/s.
THE ROYAL PALMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. )...DEFENDANTS
Mr.Vibhav Krishna a/w. Mr.Tahir Prande i/by Juris Consillis, Advocate
for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Shard Bansal a/w. Ms.F.Mehta i/by M/s.Markand Gandhi & Co.,
Advocate for the Defendants no.1, 2 and 4.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 15th April 2026
P.C. :
1. This matter was kept back in the morning session as the learned
Counsel appearing in the matter were ironing out the differences in the
draft issues furnished by the Plaintiffs.
2. When the matter is called out in the afternoon session, the
learned Counsel submit that the draft issues have been worked out.
3. Accordingly, the following issues are framed by consent :
ISSUES
(i) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that a valid, binding and concluded
Agreement for Sale dated 27th September 1993 was executed
ARTI
VILAS
KHATATE
10-S-1186-2007.doc
between the Plaintiffs and Defendant no.1 and they are entitled
to a decree for specific performance of the Agreement ?
(ii) Whether the Defendants prove that the said Agreement is void
for uncertainty, vagueness and/or is not a concluded contract in
respect of the exact area, location and boundaries of the Suit
property ?
(iii) Whether the Defendants prove that the Agreement for Sale dated
27th September 1993 was unlawful, void and incapable of
specific performance ?
(iv) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful, settled and
continuous possession of the Suit property in part performance of
the Agreement ?
(v) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants have unlawfully
interfered with or threatened to dispossess the Plaintiffs from the
Suit property ?
(vi) Whether the Defendants prove that the Plaintiffs were never put
in possession of the Suit property ?
(vii) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to protection
of their possession of the Suit property ?
(viii) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants committed
breach of the terms of the Agreement ?
(ix) Whether the Defendants prove that the Agreement stood validly
terminated by letter dated 29th January 2003 ?
(x) Whether the Defendants prove that the Plaintiffs have committed
breach of the terms of the Agreement and have not performed
10-S-1186-2007.doc
and been willing and ready to perform their obligation under the
Agreement ?
(xi) Whether the Defendants prove that the Suit is barred by
limitation ?
(xii) In the alternative, whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
compensation in lieu of specific performance and refund of the
amount paid with interest and such repayment be secured by
security charge on the Suit property to be realized by sale of Suit
property ?
(xiii) What decree ?
(xiv) What order ?
(xv) What order as to costs ?
4. Let the Plaintiffs within a period of six weeks file an Affidavit of
examination-in-chief of the Plaintiffs' witness along with Affidavit of
evidence and Compilation of documents duly indexed and paginated
and serve the same upon the Defendants along with list of Plaintiffs'
witnesses.
5. Discovery and inspection to be completed within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
6. Defendants to file Statement of admission and denial within a
period of two weeks thereafter with a copy to the other side.
10-S-1186-2007.doc
7. List for marking of Plaintiffs' documents on 1st July 2026.
8. Let the Plaintiffs' witness remain present in Court on the next
date.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
