REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Ullasbhai Parsottambhai Appellant

V/S

Patel Dineshbhai Ramabhai Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BISHUNDEO NARAIN VS. SEOGENI RAI [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE VS. BALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE [REFERRED TO]
PULAVARTHI VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. VALLURI JAGANNADHA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SILVER SCREEN ENTERPRISES VS. DEVKI NANDAN NAGPAL [REFERRED TO]
BAI CHANCHAL VS. SYED JALALUDDIN+ [REFERRED TO]
K K CHARI VS. R M SESHADRI [REFERRED TO]
SULEMAN NOORMOHAMED AMD OTHERS VS. UMARBHAI JANUBHAI [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. CHANDO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. CHANDO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
D P CHADHA VS. TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORT CO VS. INDIAN CEMENT LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KISHUN ALIAS RAM KISHUN VS. BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT VS. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL VS. NIRMALA JAYPRAKASH TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA VS. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
PONTHINODA SAINABI AND OTHERS V/S. VATAKKILODA ABOOBACKERKOYA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JAWAN VS. MEWA SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of the original defendants, arising from a decree passed by the Civil Court on the strength of a settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court and is directed against the order passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand, below Exh.105 in Special Civil Suit No.144 of 2009, by which the Civil Court rejected the application Exh.105 filed by the defendants to declare the settlement arrived at by the parties as a nullity alleged to have been obtained by fraud and coercion.

(2.) The Civil Court, while rejecting the application Exh.105 filed by the original defendants, partly held the settlement deed Exh.35 dated 11th January 2011 as legal and valid and directed the defendants to execute the necessary sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the party which the plaintiff would suggest and the entire cost of such sale deeds was directed to be borne by the plaintiff. The Civil Court also clarified that the plaintiff had not to pay any sale consideration.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to as the original defendants and the respondent shall be referred to as the original plaintiff.

Click here to view full judgment.

ULLASBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI Vs. PATEL DINESHBHAI RAMABHAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address