Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against an order of a learned single Judge in a Chamber Summons taken out by Respondent Nos.1 to 6 (applicants) under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The applicants sought a declaration that consent terms dated 27.11.1978 between the appellants and obstructionists in Chamber Summons No.566 of 1977 were not binding on them, and for restoration of their original premises or alternative accommodation in the proposed new building. The property in question is admeasuring 3000 sq. yards at Lower Parel, Mumbai, owned by Appellant No.1, M.H. Sampat, and original Plaintiff No.2 (father of Appellant No.2). There were numerous tenants on the property occupying separate hutments/structures. In 1948, the appellants filed 162 suits. The Chamber Summons was filed by the applicants, who claimed to be tenants, seeking relief against the consent terms. The court analyzed the facts and held that the consent terms were not binding on the applicants as they were not parties to them. The court allowed the appeal and directed the appellants to restore possession of the original premises to the applicants or provide alternative premises of similar area in the new building.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order 21 Rule 99 CPC - Binding Nature of Consent Terms - Consent terms between plaintiffs and obstructionists are not binding on applicants who were not parties to those terms - The court held that the applicants, who were tenants in possession, cannot be ousted by consent terms to which they were not parties (Paras 2-5).
B) Property Law - Restoration of Possession - Alternative Accommodation - Applicants entitled to restoration of original premises or alternative accommodation of similar area in new building - The court directed the appellants to restore possession or provide alternative premises (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent terms dated 27.11.1978 between the Appellants and the Obstructionists are binding upon the Applicants who were not parties to those terms, and whether the Applicants are entitled to restoration of possession or alternative accommodation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The consent terms dated 27.11.1978 are not binding on the applicants. The appellants are directed to restore to the applicants their original premises or provide alternative premises of similar area in the proposed new building.
Law Points
- Order 21 Rule 99 CPC
- binding nature of consent terms
- rights of non-parties
- restoration of possession
- alternative accommodation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 26
APPEAL NO.16 OF 1994 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.242 OF 1988 IN SUIT NO.5624 OF 1953
Ms.Rina K. Pujara for the Appellant, Mr.R.R. Arolkar for the Respondents
Laxmidas T. Merchand & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of learned single Judge in Chamber Summons under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC seeking declaration that consent terms are not binding and for restoration of possession or alternative accommodation.
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought declaration that consent terms dated 27.11.1978 are not binding on them and for restoration of original premises or alternative accommodation.
Filing Reason
Applicants claimed they were tenants in possession and were not parties to the consent terms between appellants and obstructionists, which sought to oust them.
Previous Decisions
The learned single Judge passed an order in Chamber Summons No.242 of 1988, which is impugned in this appeal.
Issues
Whether the consent terms dated 27.11.1978 are binding on the applicants who were not parties to them.
Whether the applicants are entitled to restoration of possession or alternative accommodation.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the consent terms were binding on all parties including the applicants.
Respondents argued that the applicants were not parties to the consent terms and therefore not bound by them.
Ratio Decidendi
Consent terms between plaintiffs and obstructionists are not binding on third parties who were not parties to those terms. Applicants who are tenants in possession are entitled to restoration of possession or alternative accommodation.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Chamber Summons was taken out by the Applicants under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that the consent terms dated 27.11.1978 between the Appellants and the Obstructionist Nos.1 to 130 therein filed in Chamber Summons No.566 of 1977 in the above suit are not binding upon the Applicants and for order directing the Appellants/Plaintiffs to restore to the Applicants their original premises described in Annexure-1 to the Chamber Summons and in the alternative for an order directing the Appellants to provide alternative premises of similar area in the proposed new building.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 1953. In 1977, Chamber Summons No.566 was filed, leading to consent terms on 27.11.1978. Subsequently, Chamber Summons No.242 of 1988 was filed by the applicants under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. The learned single Judge passed an order, against which the present appeal was filed in 1994.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 21 Rule 99
