1 NMS.49/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 49 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 48 OF 2010 Natasha D’Souza . ..Plaintiff. Vs. Dr. Sandra De Sa Souza & Anr. ..Defendants. ---- Mr. Shaunak Thakker i/b Divya Shah Associates, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Gaurav Joshi with Ms. K.R. Deviervala i/b M/s Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C., for Defendant Nos.1 and 2. --- CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER 2010. P.C. 1] This is a suit filed by the plaintiff who is a daughter of defendant no.1 and sister of defendant no.2 for specific performance of an agreement [a draft of Lease Deed] in respect of the premises more particularly described in the schedule annexed at Exhibit 'G-2' to the plaintiff with consequential prayers. The other reliefs that is claimed is that the partnership agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.1 evidenced by deed of Reconstitution of partnership to stand dissolved from the date of filing of the suit and the business of the firm M/s Desa’s Hospital be wound 2 NMS.49/2010 up and the accounts of the partnership business conducted between the plaintiff and and defendant no.1 be made up till the date of suit. 2] Since the parties are closely related to each other, the possibility of an amicable settlement was explored, and now it is stated that the parties have agreed to settle their claims. 3] The consent terms recording the settlement are tendered in the Court. The parties are present. It is agreed that the first defendant- mother will transfer to the plaintiff the premises at World Trade Centre in the manner set out in the consent terms. Further, the consent terms postulate signing of entering into and execution of a tripartite agreement and the manner in which the premises at World Trade Centre would be transferred is elaborately provided in the consent terms and the alternate arrangement in the event of premises at World Trade Centre could not be acquired is also set out. 4] The parties are knowing English language and they can read and write the same. They confirm that the consent terms fully record their understanding and agreement. They have signed the consent terms knowing fully well the implications and consequences flowing therefrom. It is an arrangement interse between them so as to put an end to the dispute between close relatives amicably. They do not affect the rights of any third parties nor they inter-meddle with the same in any manner. 3 NMS.49/2010 5] Having perused the consent terms and confirming that same have been signed by the parties who are present in the Court, after being duly explained the consequences, I am of the opinion that the consent terms do not violate any provisions of law nor can be termed as contrary to public policy. Therefore, they can be taken on record and order can be made in furtherance thereof. 6] Accordingly, the consent terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. There will be a decree in terms of consent terms and the suit is disposed off. There is no order as to costs. Refund of Court fees as per rule. 7] Interim applications/ interim orders, if any, do not survive in the light of disposal of the suit. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]