VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHET versus NOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHET versus NOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

Agreement of sale executed only by co-sharers did not bind minor Defendant No. 3, whose share could not be sold without his participation. The High Court order was a consent order pursuant to statements made by counsel; as per Section 96(3) of CPC, no appeal lies from a consent decree. The minor was entitled to purchase co-sharers' shares by paying the agreed market value, with relief of specific performance in default. Concession made before High Court by counsel, as recorded, could not be challenged before Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellant: Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet; Respondent: Noor Ahmed Sheriff; Respondent: Mahalakshmi Pavani; Respondent: Utav Sidhu; Respondent: Filza Moonis; Respondent: G. Balaji; Respondent: Apeksha Sharan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Partition Act, Consent Decree, Minor's Share in Property, Appeal From Consent Decree, Market Valuation
Civil Law Property Law Specific Performance Partition Act Consent Decree Minor's Share in Property Appeal From Consent Decree Market Valuation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet

Appellant

Noor Ahmed Sheriff

Respondent

Mahalakshmi Pavani

Respondent

Utav Sidhu

Respondent

Filza Moonis

Respondent

G. Balaji

Respondent

Apeksha Sharan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant No. 3, a minor not party to sale agreement, is bound by agreement for sale of entire property
  2. 2 Whether appeal lies from consent decree under Section 96(3) CPC
  3. 3 Effect of concession made by counsel in High Court

Ratio Decidendi

Agreement of sale executed only by co-sharers did not bind minor Defendant No. 3, whose share could not be sold without his participation. The High Court order was a consent order pursuant to statements made by counsel; as per Section 96(3) of CPC, no appeal lies from a consent decree. The minor was entitled to purchase co-sharers' shares by paying the agreed market value, with relief of specific performance in default. Concession made before High Court by counsel, as recorded, could not be challenged before Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant No. 3 granted three months from judgment date to pay Rs.11,42,590/- as value of 9/11th share; in default, relief of specific performance to appellant.
  • Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 directed to return Rs.1,53,000/- received towards sale consideration to plaintiff, with 9% interest from date of payment, within eight weeks.