P S RANGNEKAR Vs. VANITA MANGESH NADKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order passed on 11th October 1991 by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 5201 of 1991 in Short Cause Suit No. 2482 of 1991. The short facts of the case are as follows :--

(2.) ONE Purnima A. Rangnekar filed a suit in Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 1341 of 1990 against Sulochana Bhalchandra Aras for an injunction, restraining the said Sulochana from dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion of Bunglow known as "shiv Niwas", situated at Mahant Road, Vile Parle (W), Bombay on the ground that there was a partnership between the said Purnima and the said Sulochana in respect of sale of Venkyhs Chiken Products. In the said suit, the said Purnima also took out Notice of Motion, and obtained order of status quo initially. The said Notice of Motion in the said suit was dismissed on merits. It is revealed that the said Sulochana, had entered into agreement of sale in respect of the said bunglow viz. "shivniwas" with the Builders Shivbhoomi Leasing and Investment Private Ltd. , and that there was a gift deed of the said bunglow and the said property gifted in favour of the deceased husband of the said Sulochana and the said Sulochana herself by her mother-in-law Anandibai since deceased. The Notice of Motion in the said Suit No. 1341 of 1991 having been dismissed, the matter has been carried to the High Court. But the High Court rejected it and the matter further went upto the Supreme Court. During the course of the said litigation, the said Purnima executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the petitioner took pains and spent enormous sums of money to prosecute the Notice of Motion and Appeal and also to file S. L. P. in the Honble Supreme Court. During the course of the said Suit No. 1341/91, the said Purnima and her husband Avinash and her mother-in-law Shushilabai as also the petitioner came to know that the said property was allegedly gifted by the said Anandibai to the said Sulochana and her deceased husband. A suit being Suit No. 2482 of 1991 filed in the Bombay City Civil Court by the said Sushilabai against said Sulochana and said Shivbhoomi-Builder and Mrs. Vanita Nadkarni. The said Sushilabai, who was the plaintiff, inter alia, stated that the deceased husband of the said Sulochana-one Bhalchandra, Sushilabai herself and the said Vanita were equal share holders in respect of the said bunglow and the property viz. , Shiv Niwas situated at Mahant Road, Vile Parle (E), Bombay- 57. It is further stated that the alleged gift deed sought to be relied upon by the said Sulochana, is a sham and bogus document and that the signature of said Anandibai, mother of Sulochana, Bhalchandra and Vanita was forged and that no title actually and factually was passed to the said Bhalchandra and Sulochana by virtue of the alleged gift deed. However, we were not very much concerned with these facts in detail for the purpose of this case.

(3.) AT the hearing of the Notice of Motion in the second suit, talks for settlement were held and the same culminated in filing the consent terms. It was mutually decided by the Sushilabai, the plaintiff in the second suit and the said Vanita who was 3rd defendant in the second suit that the petitioner herein who is close relative of the plaintiff, should be also paid substantial amount since he had taken pains to prosecute the first suit filed by the said Purnima being Suit No. 1341 of 1991, which was carried upto Supreme Court. At the instance of the Builder, however, other defendants were also added, total number whereof came to 19. The consent terms were finalised on 2nd May 1991 and the same was filed in the second suit. We are not very much concerned about the details of the provisions of the consent terms also.