AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Deshmukh
I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have considered the Judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, as well.
SECOND APPEAL No. 24/2010
In relation to Second Appeal No. 24/2010, I am accepting Ground (e) (page 8), to be a ground involving substantial question of law, even though the Counsel appearing for the appellants argues that other grounds and, more specifically, grounds (a) and (b) also involve substantial questions of law. It is made clear that I have accepted only one ground in this appeal i.e. Ground (e), which is reproduced hereinbelow, being the substantial question of law in this appeal:
Whether in absence of any findings that the appellant had knowledge about the existing . . 3 SA. 24 of 2010 and ors. tenancy rights of the respondent No. 1, prior to signing agreement for sale with the respondents No. 2-4, whether the finding that the rights of the respondent No. 1 over the premises as tenant would not be affected and the appellants are bound by the said earlier tenancy rights is vitiated in law, and whether the Appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondent No. 1 did not have any right over the premises purchased by the appellants and his tenancy was not qua the said premises ?
SECOND APPEAL No. . 36/2010
In this appeal, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am accepting question No.5 (page 5) to be a substantial question of law. The said question reads as follows :
Was the first appellate Court justified in travelling beyond pleadings and/or jurisdiction to invoke tenancy rights in a suit seeking specific performance of a contract ?
SECOND APPEAL NO. 111/2010
In this appeal, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am accepting point D (page B) to be a substantial question of law. The said question reads as follows :
Whether the learned District Judge, in the absence of the knowledge of the appellants to the Agreement or the rights of respondent No. 1, could have held that the Agreement dated 2.12.1982 was binding on the appellants ?
Apart from the grounds mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the basis for the disputes amongst the parties, is the Agreement dated 2.12.1982. This agreement has been considered by both the Courts below, in relation to the other documents which are duly proved and produced on record. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel who appears for the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff, fairly concedes that the agreement dated 2.12.1982 is not registered before the Sub-Registrar of the concern area, however, according to him it is a notarized agreement.
In this view of the matter, an additional substantial question of law which I am formulating in all these three appeals, is as below:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of Regular Civil Suit No. 417/00/B (Special Civil Suit No. 52/85/A), interpretation of the document i.e. Agreement dated 2.12.1982 by first appellate Court is correct ?. All these appeals i.e. Second Appeals No. 24/2010, 36/2010 and 111/2010 are admitted on the above substantial questions of law. Counsel for the respective respondents waive notice.