OM PRAKASH NAVANI Vs. JUNO CHANGAS PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question that would put at rest the entire controversy before this Court in the present proceedings is: whether the execution of the consent decree passed on 20/08/1983 in Suit No. 1530 of 1983 has become barred by limitation? Briefly stated, the plaintiffs instituted suit for specific performance against the defendants in which, Consent Terms were filed and the suit was decreed in terms of the said Consent Terms. It will be apposite to advert to the said Consent Decree as passed by this Court on 20/08/1983. The same reads thus:-"1. AGREED AND DECLARED that the agreement for sale dated 23/10/1981, Exhibit "b" to the plaint is valid, subsisting and binding on the parties.

(2.) ORDERED AND DECREED that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as the executors and executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Mary Antoinette Pereira (hereinafter referred to as "the said deceased" do sell, transfer and assign to and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 do confirm in favour of the plaintiffs their leasehold right, title and interest in the immoveable property known as "mark Haven" more particularly described in Exhibit "a" to the plaint and in the schedule hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as "the said immoveable property" ).

(3.) AGREED AND DECLARED that if in respect of the area of 474. 39 square yards resumed by the Bombay Port Trust under the terms of the lease any additional F. S. I. is available, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the benefit but the defendants shall not be liable in any manner whatsoever if no such additional F. S. I. is available nor will the plaintiffs are entitled to any diminution in price by reason thereof.