Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.73 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Smt. Latabai Narcinha Telang, Widow Of ... vs Shri Suresh Narcinha Telang And Shri ... on 6 May, 2005
It follows from the judgment in the case of Latabai (supra), that, it
is not open for the party to seek modification of clause in the consent terms
on the ground that, the same was not intended or agreed by the parties. It
is only in those cases, where the consent terms as a whole, on the ground
that fraud, misrepresentation or of similar ground are challenged, then the
Court has to decide the issue. Coming to the facts of the present case, the
petitioner has not disputed that he has received consideration of Rs.1
Crores and 45 Lacs for the property bearing survey No. 51/2A, situated at
Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. It is evident that the deed of
conveyance is executed between the parties. The contention of learned
senior counsel for the petitioner that, clause 3 of the consent terms was
under fraud, coercion and it was signed by the petitioner under coercion
and signatures are obtained by fraud and therefore, the petitioner has
challenged the consent terms as a whole, cannot be accepted. The
contention appears to be that the property bearing survey No. 51/4 situated
at Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar is released without any
consideration. The said contention is devoid of any merits.
Sm. Sumitra Devi Agarwalla vs Sm. Sulekha Kundu And Anr. on 24 February, 1976
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner pressed into service a reported
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sm. Sumitra Devi
Agarwalla v. Sm Sulekha Kundu and another, reported in AIR 1976
Cal. 196 (1) and submitted that the term "lawful agreement" in order 23
Rule 3 does not include with it, agreement which is initiated by fraud,
undue influence or coercion. The learned senior counsel invited my
attention to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment and submitted that
consent terms are signed by the petitioner by force and coercion.
The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand vs Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopal on 11 February, 1963
11. By introducing the amendment to the C.P.C. (Amendment) 1976
w.e.f. 1.2.1977, the Legislature have brought into force Rule 3-A to Order
23, which creates bar to institute the suit to set aside a decree on the
ground that the compromise on which decree is based was not lawful. The
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chand Kaur (supra) while
interpreting the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 and 3-A in para 11 and 12,
held as under:-
1