SANTOSHKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ASHWIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two appeals, the appellants are challenging common judgment and order dated 01/01/2018 passed by the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-4, Nagpur (appellate court) whereby appeals filed by the respondent have been allowed, consequently, the suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the counter claim of the respondent has been allowed.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:

(3.) The respondent appeared before the trial court and denied that he was liable to pay the aforesaid amount as paid by the appellants. The respondent contended that the aforesaid flats in question were constructed and that they were in possession of the appellants, which they had used for accommodation of their guests for some duration and for some periods of time, they had given the flats on rent. It was contended that although there was specific stipulation in the agreements dated 06/06/1997 that execution of necessary documents for conferring absolute title on the appellants in pursuance of the said agreements would be after decision in Special Civil Suit No. 763 of 1996 (a litigation pending between the respondent and the owner of the land on which the building was situated wherein the aforesaid flats were located), with a further stipulation that only if the respondent failed to get a decree of specific performance in the said suit, he would be liable to refund double the amount to the appellants, despite the fact that the aforesaid suit was still pending, the respondent had agreed to refund amount to the appellants on purely humanitarian considerations. It was contended that even under the aforesaid memorandum of understanding dated 01.01.2011, the respondent was liable to refund the amount specified therein, only upon the appellants executing legally valid documents showing that the appellants had given up their rights in respect of the suit property. In the absence of any such legally valid documents executed by the appellants signifying cancellation of the agreements dated 06/06/1997, the appellants were not justified in filing the suit for recovery. The respondent claimed that the very fact that the appellants did not encash the aforesaid cheques demonstrated that the mutual rights and obligations between the parties had not crystallized and that recovery sought to be made by the appellants on the basis of aforesaid memorandum of understanding was not justified. Along with written statement, the respondent also filed a counter claim praying for a declaration that the agreements dated 06/06/1997 subsisted and that the appellants were bound to await the disposal of aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 763 of 1996.