IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.420 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.798 OF 2008 Shri Sandeep S.Karnawat & Ors. )..Appellants Versus Shri Manipal Sukanraj Jain & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Ms.Gauri Godse for the appellants. Mr.K.K.Malpathak for respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 26.6.2008. PC 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original obstructionists. The original plaintiff who had acquired rights under an agreement dated 26.11.1998, filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant one Mr.Umesh Barai who was the proprietor of the firm by name "Buddhadev Enterprises". This suit resulted in a consent decree dated 3.1.2001. The original defendant Umesh Barai who was the party to the consent decree expired on 12.1.2002. The original plaintiffs filed an execution proceedings against the widow of the original defendant Umesh Barai, who succeeded him as a proprietor of Buddhadev Enterprises. The record indicates that during the pendency of the suit, by an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.10.1999 the : 2 : original defendant Umesh Barai has sold development rights in favour of one M/s.Vastu Developers. By further registered agreement, M/s.Vastu Developers passed on their rights to the present obstructionists. The obstructionists therefore, based their claim on the basis of the registered document dated 10.12.2002 executed by M/s.Vastu Developers in their favour. It was contended that once Umesh Barai had executed Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.10.1999, he had no right to enter into consent decree. There is no substance in this contention. Firstly, the Memorandum of Understanding is executed later in point of time than the suit agreement dated 26.11.1998. Secondly, a perusal of the said Memorandum of Understanding indicates that M/s.Vastu Developers who were termed as sub-developers were given limited rights to sale "unsold flats". The flats which were agreed to be sold, were therefore, not falling in this category. It was sought to be contended that the list of flats which were sold was annexed to the agreement dated 13.10.1999. It was further sought to be contended that the suit flat was not mentioned in that list. In my view, that will not make any difference, once prior agreement was proved. The present appellants cannot get any better rights than M/s.Vastu Developers. There are concurrent finding of facts in these aspects. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second : 3 : Appeal. Second Appeal therefore, stands dismissed. 2. At this stage, Advocate for the appellants seeks extension of the stay which was running. Decree in question will not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.798 OF 2008 . As Second Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application also stands rejected. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)