Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27 June 2011, dismissing a Notice of Motion taken out by the Appellants (Ramesh Raghunath Joshi and another) seeking to be discharged partially from an undertaking recorded in consent terms dated 15 January 2004, and for modification of the undertaking to allow withdrawal of their claim in respect of property bearing CTS No.421/4. The First and Second Respondents (Mrs. Aruna Preet Mohan Singh Malik and others) had instituted a suit seeking a declaration that a will dated 20 December 1988 propounded by Shantabai Ramchandra Joshi (the original defendant) was a fabricated document. The Respondents propounded a will dated 19 April 1986 read with a codicil dated 14 April 1989, under which the testatrix bequeathed to them the land bearing CTS No.421/4. Probate was granted to the Respondents in January 1995. Shantabai Joshi filed a testamentary petition on 20 November 1995 for letters of administration of the will dated 20 December 1988. The suit and petition were disposed of by consent terms dated 15 January 2004, which recorded an undertaking by the Appellants (who were the legal representatives of Shantabai Joshi) that they would not claim any right, title, or interest in the property CTS No.421/4. The Appellants later sought to be discharged from this undertaking, contending that they had not understood the implications and that the property was valuable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the motion, holding that the consent terms were binding and the undertaking could not be modified. On appeal, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.S. Sonak, JJ.) upheld the Single Judge's order, holding that the consent terms constitute a binding contract, and the undertaking cannot be unilaterally modified without establishing fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. The court found no such grounds and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Consent Terms - Binding Nature - Consent terms constitute a binding contract between parties and cannot be unilaterally modified or discharged unless vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake - The court held that the undertaking given in consent terms is enforceable and the appellants failed to establish any ground for discharge or modification (Paras 2-10). B) Civil Procedure - Undertaking to Court - Modification - Inherent Power - The court's inherent power to modify or discharge an undertaking is limited and can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or change in circumstances - The appellants' mere change of mind or difficulty in performing the undertaking is insufficient to warrant relief (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants can be discharged or relieved from the undertaking recorded in consent terms dated 15 January 2004, and whether the undertaking can be modified to allow withdrawal of their claim in respect of property CTS No.421/4.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Consent terms are binding contracts
- undertaking in consent terms cannot be modified unilaterally
- discharge from undertaking requires proof of fraud or mistake
- court's inherent power to modify undertakings is limited
