Sristi Vanijya Private Limited vs Maheshwari Devi

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

The original suit being no. CS/171/2007 was instituted seeking, inter-alia, a declaration affirming the continued validity and binding force of the agreement dated 21st August, 1992, a decree for specific performance directing execution and registration of the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee, damages in the alternative, consequential monetary reliefs, permanent injunction restraining alienation of the suit premises, appointment of a Receiver and other ancillary reliefs.

During the pendency of the suit, the disputants succeeded in composing their differences. Such settlement was reduced into writing by the Terms of Settlement dated 14th December, 2012, whereafter the suit came to be decreed on compromise by an order dated 19th December, 2012. The compromise recognised the plaintiff's entitlement to acquire the suit property, namely, premises no. 2/1, Dr. U.N. Brahamachari Street, Calcutta-700017 (formerly known as 2/1 Loudon Street, Kolkata –700017), upon payment of an aggregate consideration of Rs.2,41,00,000/-, besides incorporating reciprocal obligations governing completion of the transaction.

The materials placed before the Court disclose subsequent developments to have intervened after passing of the compromise decree.

It transpired that CS/251/2007, instituted by Vikramaditya Prasad Singh Deo and others concerning the self-same property also culminated in a compromise decree on 12th March, 2021. By virtue thereof, the proprietary interest in the suit premises stood redefined, the consequence being that the defendant in the present proceedings became entitled to an undivided 50% (fifty) share in the property while the remaining moiety was allotted in favour of the parties to the said proceedings.

The alteration in the defendant's proprietary interest naturally necessitated a corresponding revision of a consideration payable under the compromise decree dated 19th December, 2012. The parties had upon negotiation, accepted a sum of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- (Rs. 1 crore 32 lakhs only) shall constitute the complete and final consideration payable by the plaintiff for acquisition of the defendant's entire right, title and interest in the said undivided 50% (fifty) share.

The application sets forth, with particularity, the successive payments, constituting the revised consideration. The schedule annexed thereto records the earlier payments contemplated under the original settlement, the subsequent payments effected through pay orders, issued by HDFC and Federal Bank of India Limited on diverse dates, together with the tax deducted at source. The aggregate of such payments reiterates the agreed figure of Rs. 1,32,00,000/-, receipt whereof has been acknowledged by the defendant in full satisfaction of every monetary entitlement arising from the compromise decree. The defendant has accepted that no further pecuniary claim survives against the plaintiff concerning transfer of her interest in the suit property.

The application further narrates, the general power of attorney dated 14th December, 2012, earlier executed pursuant to the original Terms of Settlement in favour of Mr. Shyama Saran Bhalotia, has since being revoked. Simultaneously, the defendant has executed and caused registration of a fresh general power of attorney in favour of plaintiff's nominee Mr. Suraj Kumar Toshniwal, conferring upon him every authority necessary for completion of the transaction relating to the defendant's share in the property.

The Court notices that none of the alterations sought by the applicant disturbed the adjudicatory foundation of the compromise decree. The decree continues to derive its efficacy from the consensual arrangement originally accepted by the parties. The present application merely seeks incorporation of subsequent developments which have materially altered the factual matrix governing execution of the decree.

A compromise decree represents not merely an adjudication by the Court but also a solemn compact receiving judicial imprimatur. Where parties, acting with complete volition, thereafter reset certain incidents governing implementation of that decree and such alteration neither affects rights of strangers nor traverses any statutory prohibition, the Court possesses ample authority to recognise the subsequent arrangement so that the decree remains an accurate reflection of the rights presently governing the parties. Judicial process ought not compel execution of the decree in a form diversed from realities which had thereafter emerged with the concurrence of every person concerned. The compromise decree dated 9th December, 2012 has by reason of the compromise decree dated 12th March, 2021 passed in CS/251/2007, encountered a substantial factual variation concerning the quantum of interest possessed by the defendant in the suit premises. The variation has, in turn, occasioned a proportionate revision of a consideration mutually accepted by the parties. Every consequential step, including payment of revised consideration, revocation of the earlier power of attorney and execution of the fresh instrument in favour of the plaintiff's nominee, already stand accomplished.

The Court perceives neither legal impediment nor equitable consideration warrant in refusal of the reliefs, prayed for. On the contrary, judicial recognition of the subsequent settlement alone, would secure fidelity between the decree and the rights presently governing the parties. Accordingly, the instant application being GA/4/2026 succeeds.

It is ordered that the compromise decree dated 19th December, 2012 passed in CS/171/2007 stands modified in the following manner:

The department shall forthwith draw up the amended decree incorporating the modifications directed herein.

The application as aforesaid stands allowed.