Holding

The consent decree remains valid and binding; the parties must fulfill their reciprocal obligations simultaneously, and no later agreement has displaced the decree.

Summary

The respondent purchased a flat from the appellant under an agreement dated 16 September 1985 and later filed a suit for specific performance. During the suit the parties executed a consent decree on 1 November 1991, confirming the original agreement and setting reciprocal obligations: the appellant to hand over the flat and the respondent to reconvey a parcel of land in Pune. Both parties failed to perform their respective obligations, leading to execution proceedings. The appellant appealed, contending that the consent terms had been replaced by a later settlement and that the High Court erred by not requiring leave under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. The Supreme Court held that the consent decree remained valid, was not superseded, and that the reciprocal obligations must be performed simultaneously. Accordingly, the Court ordered specific performance: the appellant to deliver possession of the flat and the respondent to execute the deed of conveyance of the land, along with ancillary directions on costs and surveyor appointment.

Issues considered

The consent terms executed on 1 November 1991 were superseded by any subsequent agreement between the parties.
Whether the reciprocal obligations under the consent decree must be performed simultaneously.
Whether the High Court erred in not requiring leave under Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC before granting relief.
Enforcement of the consent decree for specific performance of flat transfer and land reconveyance.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 21 Rule 22, s. Rule XL (Rule 1)
Income Tax Acts. Section 37(1)

Subjects

specific performanceconsent decreereciprocal obligationsCPC Order 21 Rule 22real estatecontract breachcivil appealexecution proceedingspartition wallconveyance of land

Judgment

RANGNA TH HARIDAS A
v.
DR. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE

AUGUST 22, 2006

[S:B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B

' Specific. performance-Suit for-Consent decree-Enforcement of-
Agreement for purchase of flat-Suit for specific performance of the
agreement-During pendency of suit, parties amicably settled the dispute- C
High Court held that the consent terms were valid and subsisting and passed
order incorporating the terms of consent-Consent terms not substituted by
subsequent agreement as alleged-Hence, parties directed by Supreme Court
to give effect to terms of the consent decree-Reciprocal obligations of the
parties directed to be acted upon simultaneously.

Respondent entered into an agreement with Appellant for purchase D
of a flat. Despite making part payment, when Appellant did not perform
his part of the agreement, Respondent filed suit in the High Court seeking
specific performance of the said agreement. During pendency of the suit,
the parties amicably settled the dispute. High Court held that the consent
.terms were valid and subsisting and passed order incorporating the terms E
of consent.

In appeal to this Court, it was inter alia contended that the High
Court passed the impugned judgment without noticing the fact that the
consent terms had been substituted by a subsequent agreement between
the parties. F
Disposing of the ap(!eal, the Court

HELD: t. As the High Court as also this Court are acting on the
basis of the terms of the consent decree, the reciprocal obligations of the
parties should be directed to be acted upon simultaneously. This Court is G
not satisfied ·that the consent terms were in any manner substituted by
another agreement between the parties. Hence, the parties should be
directed to give effect to the terms of the consent decree. Whereas the
appellant is to handover the flat to the respondent, the respondent was

913 H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A also obligated to transfer the land situated in the District of Pone. Both
the parties have failed to comply with their mutual obligations.
(923-D-FJ

2. It is therefore directed as under:

B (i) The appellant shall handover possession of Flat No. B-4, 2nd
Floor, 8-Wing, Anant Patil Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai-
400 028 to the respondent, wherefor the requisite partition wall, if any,
should be constructed. In case of any doubt or dispute as to the exact area
of the flat in question, a surveyor may be appointed to demarcate the said
flat and ensure construction of a wall between Flat No.B-3 and 8-4. The
c appointment of surveyor, if any, should be undertaken within three weeks
from date. The respondent shall bear the expenses therefor. The
respondent shall also bear all costs for preparation of documents, stamp
duties and registration costs, etc., if any, thereafter transfer of the said
prorerty.
D
(ii) The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the respondent with the Court Receiver, which
sum is over and above the amount of Rs. 5,35,000/- paid by the respondent
to the appellant.

E (iii) The respondent shall execute a contract in the same format
which the other allottees of the building had undertaken in regard to
maintenance etc. of the said flat.

(iv) The respondent shall execute a deed of conveyance in favour of
the appellant in respecfof the land being Survey 25 (Gate No. 255) situated
F at Village Loni Lalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District Pone, admeasuring 324
sq. metres within four weeks from date. He shall also handover vacant
peaceful possession thereof within six weeks. The appellant shall pay and
bear the costs for requisite stamp papers as also the registration charges.
(923-GH; 924-A-El

G CIVIL APPELLATF JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3596 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2 I.I 0.2004 and 17 .8.2004 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 672/2004 in Chamber
Summons No. 1460/2003 in ExecJtion Application No. 388/2003 in Suit No.
H 3550/90 an in Chamber Summons No. 1460/2003 in Execution Application
RANGNATH HAR!DAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DALVEER BHANDARI, l.J 915
No. 388/2003 in Suit No. 3550/90. A
A.K. Ganguli, K.C. Kaushik, Rahul Kaushik, Shilpi Kaushik and Ashok
Kumar Singh for the Appellant.

Arvind Sawant, Shekhar Parbawalkar and D.M. Nargolkar for the
Respondent. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. Leave granted.

By the order dated 17.08.2004, Chamber Summons No. 1460 of2003 C
in Execution Application No. 388 of 2003 in Suit No. 3550 of 1990 was
made absolute by the Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Single Judge, the appellant-defendant
filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court dismissed the said appeal (Appeal No. 672 of 2004) by an order D
dated 21.10.2004.

The appellant aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench has preferred this civil appeal before this
Court.
E
The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal is
recapitulated as under:

The respondent-plaintiff entered into an agreement with the appellant
for the purchase of a flat on 16.9.1985. Despite making part payment, when
the appellant did not perform his part of the agreement, the respondent filed F
.' a Suit No. 3550 of 1990 in the High Court of Bombay for seeking specific
performance of the agreement dated 16.9.1985.

During the pendency of the suit, the parties have amicably settled the
dispute involved in the suit and filed the consent terms on 1.11.1991. The
details of the Chamber Summons and the consent terms incorporated in the G
.• order of the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereinafter for proper
appreciation of the facts of this case.

"that pending the above Execution Application, this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay with H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
f
A all powers under Rule XL rule I of C.P.C. 1908 with further directions
to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, to take possession of
Flat No.B-4, 2nd Floor, Golden Height, situated at Anant Patil Marg,
Dadar Mumbai 400 028 with further directions to the Court Receiver
to appoint Architect and Contractor from panel of this Hon'ble Court
to get the said incomplete work completed as mentioned in the report
B dated 29th November, 1999 filed by Mis Nandkami & Co. in Notice
of Motion no.2660 of 1999 and to obtain part Occupation Certificate
from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, in respect of the
said flat with further directions to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful
'
possession of the said flat to the plaintiff as per consent decree dated
c !st November, 1991."

The consent terms contained the following clauses:
"2. The parties confirm that the agreement dated 16.9.1985 between
them is valid and subsisting and the same is binding on the
parties.
D
3. The Defendant hereby confirm having received Rs.2,35,000/-
from the plaintiff as per the agreement dated 16.9.1985. (

5. The Defendant states that as per the said proposed plan there are
no flats admeasuring about 750 sq.ft. in both the Wings of the
E proposed buildings. But there are flats admeasuring about 935
sq. ft. (super built up area) in the said building and the plaintiff
has agreed to purchase a flat admeasuring 935 sq. ft. on further
payment of Rs.6,00,000/- which the plaintiff has agreed to
purchase the flat on 2nd floor in Wing 'B' Western Side.on the
following terms.
F
6. The Defendant to sell and to entrust to the plaintiff flat No.B-4
on the 2nd Floor of B-Wing (super built up area) of the building
on plaintiffs paying the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in addition to
c Rs.2,35,000/- already paid by him to the plaintiff in the following
manner:
G
Rs.3,00,000/- prior to the execution of these terms by pay •.
order No. 466770 dated 31. I0.1991 at the time of Defendant
handing over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of Flat
No.B-4, 2nd Floor, B-Wing at Anant Patil Marg, Shivaji

H
Park, Dadar (West) Bombay - 400028. ·t
-
RANGNATH HARIDAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 917
: ~
7. The Defendant agrees and undertakes to provide the A
aforementioned flat with all modem facilities to the plaintiff,
after the said building is ready for occupation. The Defendant
agrees and undertakes to execute separate agreement to sell in
respect of the aforementioned flat admeasuring 925 sq. ft. (super
built up area) in favour of the plaintiff as required by the
Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1964 within eight weeks from B
the execution of these terms and the plaintiff agrees and
undertakes to pay stamp duty and registration charges as
applicable on the agreement registered before the Sub-Registrar
of Assurances at the earliest as required by the said Act.

11. The Defendant hereby agrees and undertakes to hand over quiet, c
vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No.B-4, 2nd Floor, B-
Wing at Anant Patil Marg to the Plaintiff on his paying the entire
consideration mentioned hereinabove and after, completing the
construction of the entire building wherein the said flat is situated
and the said flat is ready for occupation. D
13. The Minutes of the order dated 16th day of September, 1991
passed by their Lordships Chief Justice P.O. Desai and Mr. Justice
Tipnis in Appeal No.622 of 1991 shall remain in force until the
Defendant hands over possession of the said flat to the plaintiff
on plaintiffs paying the entire consideration mentioned
E
hereinabove."

The learned Single Judge further examined the matter and observed as
under:

"Clause 2 of the Minutes of the order dated 16th September, 1991
referred to in Clause 13 above read as under:-
F
"The Respondent/Defendant states that there is no flat
admeasuring 750 sq. ft. in the proposed building. However, there
is a flat of 935 sq. ft. on second floor (Right Side) which at
present is not agreed to be sold to anyone. The Respondent
states that without prejudice to his rights and contentions the G
.. Respondent shall not enter into any agreement for sale in respect
of said flat unless he has given seven days clear notice to the
Appellant's Advocate, during which period the Appellant shall
be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before trial court
•• for appropriate reliefs. The Respondent shall also be at liberty H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to urge all contentions as are permissible to him in law." (

By an order dated 10th August, 1999, S.S. Nijjar, 1. held that the
Defendants had failed and neglected to comply with the above order.
His Lordship observed that the Defendants had committed contempt
of court. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in order to protect
B the interest of the Plaintiff granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer
(a) of the Notice of Motion No.2660 of 1999. However, that Notice
of Motion was withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate
proceedings. A further Notice of Motion No.170 I of 2002 for similar
reliefs was also withdrawn, as reflected from the order dated 30th
July, 2001. The explanation that the aforesaid Notices of Motion
c were withdrawn for the purpose of adopting appropriate proceedings,
is accepted.

The present Chamber Summons is taken out in execution
proceedings, which is the proper remedy.

D There is no answer on the merits of the case whatsoever. The
only answer sought to be given is that there was an alleged oral
understanding prior to the execution of the const:nt terms dated l st
November, 1991. The same is unsustainable, in view of the fact that
the consent terms are still valid a11d binding.

E The defendant has not complied with any of his obligations
including the obligation under clause 7 of the consent terms. There
is an open defiance of the order.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant further
stated that there is an order of attachment in respect of Flat No.B-3
F passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in respect of the dues of
SICOM. Admittedly an M.O.U. dated 9th July, 1996 was entered
into between the Defendant and Dinesh Anant Rane for Flat No.B-3.
That flat however, is not the subject matter of this suit. The learned
counsel for the Defendant further stated that there is no wall between
flat No.B-4 i.e. the suit flat and flat No.B-3. He further states that the
G
possession of flat No.B-4 was never handed over to the said Rane
and that Rane does not have any right in respect thereof. The warrant ...
of attachment therefore, on its own showing does not apply to the suit
flat. In fact had the Defendant sought to create any right in respect
of flat No.B-4 i.e. the suit flat in favour of Rane or anyone else, it
H would have been contempt of the aforesaid orders of this Court. In ••
RANGNATH HARIDAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 919
the circumstances, there can be no objection to the grant of reliefs in A
the present Chamber Summons.

The Chamber Summons is made absolute in tenns of Prayer (a).
The Court Receiver shall erect a wall at the appropriate place between
flat Nos.B-3 and B-4. The defendant shall pay the costs of this
Chamber Summons fixed at Rs.5000/- within two weeks from today. B
The Defendant shall also pay the cost of construction of the wall to
the Court Receiver within four week~ of a demand for the same by
the Court Receiver.

The operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks
from today to enable the Defendant to carry the matter higher. C
The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of."

The appellant aggrieved by the said order preferred Appeal No.672 of
2004 before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The submission
before the Division Bench was that the impugned leave under Order 21 Rule D
22 CPC having not been sought by the respondent, the impugned order is
illegal. The Division Bench rejected the objection on the ground that this
plea was not raised before the learned Chamber Judge.

The learned Chamber Judge held that the consent tenns were valid and
subsisting and accordingly passed the impugned order. The Division Bench E
did not find any infinnity in the order passed by the learned Chamber Jadge
and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

' The appellant aggrieved by the .aforesaid orders dated 17th August,
2004 and 21st October, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench respectively has preferred this civil appeal before this Court. F
!

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order
of the Division Bench and the order of the learned Chamber Judge. The
consent terms submitted between the parties are as under:

"I. The defendant abovenamed waives the service of Writ of G
Summons in the above matter.
2. The parties confinn that the agreement dated 16.9.1985 between
them is valid and subsisting and the same is binding on the

- parties.
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 3. The defendant hereby confirms having received Rs.2,35,000/-
from the Plaintiff as per the agreement dated 16.9.1985.
4. The defendant states that he has submitted the plan in respect of
Plot No.707 T.P.S. No.IV for development of the said property
to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the same
B is to be sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay.
5. The defendant states that as per the said proposed plan there are ~

no flats admeasuring about 750 sq. ft. in both the wings of the .....
proposed buildings. But there are flats admeasuring about 925
c sq. ft. (super built up area) in the said building and the Plaintiff
has agreed to purchase a flat admeasuring 925 sq. ft. on further
payment of Rs.6,00,000/- which the plaintiff has agreed to
purchase the flat on 2nd floor in Wing B Western Side on the
following terms
6. The defendant to sell and to entrust to the plaintiff flat No.B-4
D
on the 2nd floor of B-Wing (super built area) of the building on
plaintiffs paying the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in addition to
Rs.2,35,000/- already paid by him to the plaintiff in the following
manner:
Rs.3,00,00()/. prior to the execution of these terms by Pay Order
E
No.466770 dated 31.10.1991 drawn on Canara Bank, Dadar
(West) Branch; Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of the defendant handing
over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No.B-4, 2nd
floor, B-Wing at Anant Patil Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), ...
Bombay-400028
F 7. The defendant agrees and undertakes to provide the
aforementioned flat with all modern facilities to the plaintiff,
after the said building is ready for occupation. The defendant
agrees and undertakes to execute separate agreement to sell in
respect of the aforementioned flat admeasuring 925 sq. ft. (super
G built up area) in favour of the Plaintiff as required by Maharashtra
Ownership Flat Act, 1964 within eight weeks from the execution
of these terms and the plaintiff agrees and undertakes to pay
stamp duty and registration charges as applicable on the agreement

H
registered before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at the earliest
as required by the said Act. ..,
-
RANGNATI! HARJDAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 921

8. The plaintiff agrees and undertakes to pay. the additional sum of A
Rs.6,00,000/- (in addition to Rs.2,35,000/- paid by him as per
the agreement dated 16th September 1985 Ex.A to the plaint, in
the manner stated hereinabove .
• 9. The plaintiff agrees and undertakes to reconvey to the Defendant
that the land bearing S. No. 25 (Gate No.255) 2 of Village Loni B
Kalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, admeasuring about 324
sq. metres within four weeks from the date of the execution of
these terms. It is expressly agreed by and between the parties
hereto that all the expenses towards the stamp duty, registration
etc. in respect of such reconveyance shall be borne by the
defendant. C
I 0. The plaintiff has been advised that it is not required to obtain
necessary certificate under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
since the consideration of the suit flat is less than Rs.10,00,000/
- However, the plaintiff agrees and undertakes to obtain
necessary certificate under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax if D
and when required. It is expressly agreed by and between the
parties and payment of registration charges if any and the plaintiff
agree and undertakes to bear the aforementioned , . expenses towards
obtaining 37(1) if required and getting the said agreement
registered. 11. The defendant hereby agrees and undertakes to . E
hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No.B-4,
2nd floor B-Wing at Anant Patil Marg to the plaintiff on his
paying the entire consideration mentioned hereinabove and after
completing the construction of the entire building wherein the
said flat is situated and the said flat is ready for occupation.
12. The plaintiff agrees and undertakes to abide by the terms and
F
conditions that may be mentioned in the proposed agreement
that may be executed in his favour by the defendant andjoin the
co-operative body of the flat purchasers in the suit building in
whose favour the defendant will execute the conveyance to be
executed in respect of the said land in the said proposed building. G
13. The Minutes of Order dated 16th of September 1991 passed by
their Lordship Chief Justice P.O. Desai and Mr. Justice Tipnis in
Appeal No.622 of 1991 shall remain in force until the Defendant
hands over possession of the said flatto the plaintiff on plaintitrs
paying the entire consideration mentioned hereinabove." H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Clauses 9, I0 and 12 of the said Consent Tenns categorically state that
there had been some mutual obligations on the part of both the parties.

The appellant herein contends that despite such reciprocal obligations
on the part of the parties, the plaintiff-respondent did not fulfill his obligation
in tenns thereof. It was in the aforementioned context, another arrangement
B was said to have been arrived at on 27 .07 .1995, pursuant whereto and in
furtherance whereof. the respondent herein offered to take an amount of
Rs.32 lakhs enabling him to purchase the flat of his choice in the vicinity
instead of the concerned flat for which the appellant herein agreed to pay the
said amount.
c For the reasons stated hereinafter, we may not consider that part of
submissions of the learned counsel for the purpose of this case.

It appears that a notice of motion was filed before the High Court by
way of a Chamber summons, which.was supported by an affidavit affinned
D by the respondent herein. In the said affidavit, although the other clauses of
the consent tenns entered into by and between the parties on 01.11 .1991 had
been mentioned but erroneously clauses 9 and 10, which impose obligation
on his part, had been omitted. We do not appreciate such deliberate omission
on the part of the respondent. The said notice of motion was withdrawn on
30.07.2001. In the Counter Affidavit filed before us, the respondent, however,
E stated:
"I say and submit that I have always been and I am ready and
willing to fulfill my obligations under the said consent tenns and I
have always been and I am ready and willing to pay the balance
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which is payable by me against the possession
F of the said flat. I say and submit that it may not be out of place to
mention here that on or before execution of the said consent tenns,
I have paid Rs.5,35,000/- to the Petitioner abovenamed. Out of the
said consideration of Rs.5,35,000/-, Rs. 2,35,000/- was paid by me
way back in 1985. It may not be out of place to mention here that
vide clause 9 of the said consent terms/consent decree, I had agreed
G
and undertaken to reconvey to the Petitioner land bearing Survey
No.2.5 (Gate No.255) of Village Loni, Kalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District
Pune admeasuring about 324 sq. metres within four weeks from the
date of execution of the said consent tenns. However, as per the said
-
clause, the Defendant had agreed to incur the expenses towards stamp
H duty, registration charges for execution of the said reconveyance of
RANGNATH HARIOAS v. SHRIKANT B. HEGDE [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 923
the said property in his favour. However, till the Petitioner has not A
taken any steps on that behalf. I am always ready and willing to
reconvey the said property as and when called upon to do so."

The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant is that the High Court committed. a serious error in passing the
impugned judgment, without noticing that : (i) the consent order was followed B
by subsequent settlement; (ii) the reciprocal obligations had not been fulfilled;
and (iii) no leave had been obtained under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

Mr. Arvind Sawant, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the impugned C
judgment. With reference to para 9 of the consent terms, the learned counsel
would submit that his client is ready and willing to comply with the said term
also. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the fact that the
respondent had taken out notice tinder Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC, when
the appellant intended to create a third party interest. D
Having heard the. learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
that as the High Court as also this Court are acting on the basis of the terms
of the consent decree, the reciprocal obligations of the parties should be
directed to be acted upon simultaneously.
E
We are not satisfied that the consent terms were in any manner
substituted by another agreement between the parties. We, therefore, are of
the opinion that the parties should be directed to give effect to the terms of
the consent decree. We have noticed hereinbefore, whereas the appellant
herein is to handover the flat to the respondent, the respondent was also
obligated rn transfer the land situated in the District of Pune. Both the parties F
have failed to comply with their mutual obligations.

We, therefore, direct as under:

(I) The appellant shall handover possession of Flat No.B-4, 2nd
Floor, B-Wing, Anant Patil Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), G
Mumbai-400 028 to the respondent herein, wherefor the requisite
partition wall, if any, should be constructed. In case of any
doubt or dispute as to the exact area of the flat in question, a
surveyor may be appointed to demarcate the said flat and ensure
construction of a wall between Flat No.B-3 and B-4. The
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A appointment of surveyor, if any, should be undertaken within
three weeks from date. The respondent shall bear the expenses
therefor. The respondent shall also bear all costs for preparation
of documents, stamp duties and registration costs, etc., if any,
thereafter transfer of the said property.

B (2) The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the respondent herei11 with the Court
Receiver, which sum is over and above the amount of
Rs.5,35,000/- paid by the respondent to the appellant. We have
been assured that there is no shortfall in the entire amount of
consideration.
c (3) The respondent shall execute a contract in the same format which
the other allottees of the building had undertaken in regard to
maintenance etc. of the said flat.
(4) The respondent shall execute a deed of conveyance in favour of
D the appellant herein in respect of the land being Survey 25 (Gate
No.255) situated at Village Loni Lalbhor, Taluka Haveli, District
Pune, admeasuring 324 sq. metres within four weeks from date. .;

He shall also handover vacant peaceful possession thereof within
six weeks. The appellant shall pay and bear the costs for requisite
stamp papers as also the registration charges.
E
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

8.8.8. Appeal disposed of.