TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Co-owners' share in property sale deed invalidated due to lack of consent, emphasizing Partition Act rights</h1> <h3>Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet Versus Noor Ahmad Sheriff</h3> Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet Versus Noor Ahmad Sheriff - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the agreement of sale and specific performance.2. Rights of co-sharers in a dwelling house under the Partition Act, 1893.3. Discretionary powers under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.4. Consent orders and binding nature of counsel's statements.5. Applicability of Section 96 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code on appeal from consent decrees.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute over the validity of an agreement of sale for a property among co-owners. The High Court determined the market value of the property and directed the execution of the sale deed. The Supreme Court noted that Defendant No. 3, who did not join the agreement, had a separate share and the agreement was void as it did not include his share. The court emphasized the importance of all co-sharers' consent in such transactions.2. The court referred to Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, which provides rights to co-sharers in a dwelling house. Defendant No. 3 had the right to purchase his share and exclude the outsider. The court highlighted the need for equitable division and protection of the rights of all co-owners, especially in cases involving family properties.3. Regarding discretionary powers under the Specific Relief Act, the court considered the delay in specific performance and the escalation of property values in urban areas. The court noted the agreement on market valuation by both parties and emphasized the importance of fair and reasonable dealings in property transactions.4. The court discussed the binding nature of counsel's statements and consent orders. It emphasized that concessions made by counsel on factual matters are binding on the client. The court upheld the consent order made before the High Court, stating that no appeal lies from a decree passed with the parties' consent.5. Finally, the court addressed the applicability of Section 96 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code on appeals from consent decrees. It noted that since the High Court's order was a consent order, the Supreme Court generally would not interfere unless substantial injustice was done. The court dismissed the appeals with specific directions for payment and return of consideration amount with interest.Overall, the judgment highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of all co-owners, ensuring fair dealings in property transactions, and upholding the binding nature of consent orders and counsel's statements on factual matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
