Consent term
Rajendra
(Querist) 09 January 2017
This query is : Resolved
Smt.Ramrati Radheshyam Gupta - PLAINTIFF versus
1. Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta,
2. Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta,
3. Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta,
4. Kamla Ramdeo Gupta,
5. Devendra Radheshyam Gupta,
6. Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta -DEFENDANTS.
CONSENT TERMS
1. The Defendants waive service of Writ of Summons.
2. Defendants admit that the properties described in Ex ‘A’ to the plaint were the property of Hindu Undivided Family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants.
3. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, admits that under an Agreement of Family Settlement dated 1.10.1998 at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint, defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta received from the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta a sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) by cheque no. 434494 dated 25-1-1999 and another sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousands only) by cheque no. 434495 dated 2-2-1999 drawn on Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sakinaka, Mumbai branch totaling to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in full and final payments of the value of their share in the property mentioned at Ex ‘A’ to the plaint and in consideration therof they have relinquished, released and surrendered all their right Title and interest therein in favour of the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta. Defendants admit the correctness of the contents of the said Agreement of Family Settlement at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint. Defendants further admit that they have duly signed the said Agreement at Ex ‘D’ to the plaint after being read over the same to them in Hindi language. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, admits that they have now no right title and interest of any nature whatsoever in the said property described in Ex ‘A’ to the Plaint.
4. Defendants (1) Ramesh Ramdeo Gupta, (2) Rajendra Ramdeo Gupta, (3) Pushpa Ramdeo Gupta, (4) Kamla Ramdeo Gupta, agree and undertake that they will neither interfere with the management of the said property by the plaintiff and defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta as exclusive owner thereof, nor shall they interfere in getting the said property transferred in the name of plaintiff And defendants (5) Devendra Radheshyam Gupta, (6) Mahendra Radheshyam Gupta.
5. Decree in terms of Consent Terms.
6. No order as to cost.
CONSENT TERMS WERE MADE AND IT BECOMES DECREE IN HIGH COURT.
If Plaintiff Expired and Defendant No.1 is also expired and the given Rights were not Executed in 17 years by the Rights holder i.e. Defendant No. 5 & 6.
Now my Query is, IF RIGHTS WERE NOT EXECUTED FOR 17 YEARS, CAN IT IS POSSIBLE BY DEFENDANTS NO. 5 & 6 TO EXECUTE IT NOW?
rajeev sharma
(Expert) 10 January 2017
with all these facts contact your lawyer on the basis of facts of post no advise is possible
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 10 January 2017
If on the basis of consent terms court has passed the orders, the same is legal and enforceable.
Show all documents to local lawyer and discuss in detail.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 10 January 2017
query too long.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 January 2017
Repeated:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Consent-terms-627741.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Consent-terms-628101.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Consent-terms-628551.asp
