Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

901.168.12 sa.docx

c) Raut had instituted a suit for specific performance against the original owners and Prabhakar. The trial court partly decreed the rent suit on 8 th July 2004. Thereafter, on 31 st December 2008, the suit for specific performance and declaration filed by Raut was decreed. The rent appeals were decided on 25th April 2008. Thereafter, on 2nd September 2011, the appeal preferred by Prabhakar against the decree for declaration and specific performance in the suit of Raut was allowed.

f) The findings recorded on Prabhakar's ownership in the rent suit were binding on the Civil Court deciding the suit for declaration and specific performance filed by Raut. Therefore, if Prabhakar succeeds in proving in the revision application that the findings recorded in the rent appeals are illegal and perverse regarding Prabhakar's title, Raut would not be entitled to seek a decree of declaration and specific performance.

g) The original owners in the written statement supported Prabhakar's title. Initially, Raut prayed for the specific performance of his shop and the land beneath it in view of the agreement executed by Bhikubai. Subsequently, by way of amendment, Raut prayed for a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed in favour of Prabhakar to the extent of the land beneath his shop. Raut objected to the sale deed in favour of Prabhakar; thus, both the Courts erred in granting specific performance in favour of Raut, directing Prabhakar to execute the sale deed. Therefore, if 901.168.12 sa.docx Raut challenged Prabhakar's title, he would not be entitled to seek any specific performance from Prabhakar.

c) 23rd October 1996: The original owners transferred the land and the structures in favour of Prabhakar.

d) 3rd May 1997: Prabhakar filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against Raut.

901.168.12 sa.docx

e) 27th February 1998: Raut instituted a suit for specific performance and declaration against the original owners and Prabhakar.

f) November 1999: Bhikubai died.

j) 31st December 2008: The suit for specific performance and declaration filed by Raut was decreed.

901.168.12 sa.docx

k) 2nd September 2011: The appeal preferred by Prabhakar against the decree for declaration and specific performance in the suit of Raut was allowed and Raut's suit is dismissed.

8. Thus, the rent suit was partly decreed by the trial court during the pendency of Raut's suit for specific performance and declaration. In the meantime, similar litigation between Prabhakar and Neelam Bhosale was decided. Neelam Bhosale also raised similar contentions to those of Raut. The appeals arising out of the rent suit against Neelam Bhosale were decided on 22 nd September 2005. Hence, findings in those judgments were referred to and relied upon by the appellate court in the appeals arising out of the rent suit against Raut. The appeals in Raut's rent suit were decided on 25 th April 2008. Thereafter, Raut's suit for specific performance and declaration was decreed on 31st December 2008, and Prabhakar's appeal challenging the decree in Raut's favour was allowed on 2 nd September 2011. Thus, the rival claims are interlinked and decided in two separate proceedings.