1 mss S2285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2285 OF 2009 SUSHILA MALUR .. PLAINTIFF Vs. SUMITRA GOPAL & ORS. .. DEFENDANTS Ms. Purvi V. Doctor i/b India Law Alliance for the plaintiff Mr. S. V. Doijode for defendants 1-3 Mr. S. R. Lugule for D-5 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21/11/2011 P.C. It appears that late Mr. M. V. Annaswamy Iyengar and late Mrs. Padma Iyengar were owners of an immovable property in which the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 had certain shares. 2. Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell and dispose of the flat in favour of defendant No. 4. This transfer was objected 2 mss S2285 and that is how this suit has been filed. 3. Now, the heirs and legal representatives of late M. V. Annaswamy Iyengar and late Mrs. Padma Iyengar have settled their inter se dispute and have confirmed the agreement between Defendant Nos.1 and 4. They have relinquished their right, title and interest in this immovable property on receipt of the consideration mentioned in the Consent Terms. Thus, a family dispute has been resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for parties that other than defendant Nos. 1,2,3 and 5, so also the plaintiff, there are no heirs and legal representatives or anybody claiming the estate of the deceased parents. 5. It is in such circumstances that the Consent Terms which are duly signed by the authorized signatories of the plaintiff, who is stated to be in the United States of America (USA), and duly signed by the other parties, who are also residing abroad namely defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and their signatures have been confirmed by a Notary, 3 mss S2285 who was duly authorized to attest the documents under the laws prevalent in the country in which these defendants are residing are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 6. As far as defendant No. 5 is concerned, the constituted attorney of defendant No. 5 Mr. Krishnakumar P. S. has signed the terms. 7. Defendant No. 4 has signed the terms himself. 8. The constituted attorneys are present in court and have confirmed the understanding arrived at between the parties. It is stated that the same is result of detailed discussions and negotiations and willingly the parties have agreed to relinquish their shares in favour of defendant No. 1. 9. The consideration and the receipts thereof are also confirmed and it is stated that it was agreed between the parties. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Consent Terms put an end to the disputes between the parties in relation to family properties, in 4 mss S2285 terms of their understanding and, therefore, the same do not contravene any provisions of law or public policy. 10. There will be Order and Decree in terms of the Consent Terms. Suit is accordingly disposed of. Refund of court fees as per the rule. No order as to costs. 11. All notices also stand disposed of in the light of the consent terms and disposal of the suit. Interim order, if any to stand vacated forthwith. 12. It is stated that the defendant No. 6 is a co-operative housing society which was not willing to give effect to the transfer of the flat because of the pendency of the litigation. Now it is stated that the terms are signed by the duly authorized signatory of the housing society namely, the Secretary and, therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the co-operative housing society will recognize, validate and record the transfer in its records. Even this agreement is recorded and all concerned to act in terms thereof. 5 mss S2285 13. Undertakings contained in paragraph Nos. 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11 and 12 are accepted (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)