1 sl2748-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT (LODGING) NO.2748 OF 2011 M/s.J.K. Enterprises ....Plaintiff V/s. Smt.Smita Abhay Londhe & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Mahendra P. Bhat for the Plaintiff. Dr.Birendra Saraf i/b Mr.S.P. Gamre for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The parties claim to have settled the matter in terms of the consent terms signed by the advocates of the parties, tendered in Court, taken on record and marked “X”. 2. Defendant No.1 is the mother and natural guardian of defendant No.2, a minor. The husband of defendant No.1 expired on 10.8.2005. 3. The suit although for specific performance is essentially to perfect the title arising out of an agreement dated 22.12.1993. Under the agreement, the deceased had agreed to sell his 50% undivided share to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs. The consideration had been paid to him. Considering the facts of this case, I am inclined to 2 sl2748-11 accept the consent terms as being for the benefit of the minor, defendant No.2. All the other co-owners had much earlier transferred their shares to the plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement. The plaintiff has been in possession of the property for almost twenty years now. They have put up the construction on the suit property. As such the defendants are not likely to derive any benefit from the litigation that will remain pending. The plaintiffs have enhanced the consideration of Rs.3.00 lacs which was payable under the agreement dated 22.12.1993 to Rs.13.00 lacs. Rs.3.00 lacs had been paid at the time of the agreement itself. 4. In the circumstances, Defendant No.1 is appointed as guardian ad-litem for defendant No.2. The suit is disposed of in terms of the said Consent Terms. Refund, if any, as per rules.