( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT NO.1811 OF 1994 Bhamini V.Navalkar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s Mohammed Hussain Merchant & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.C.Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah for the Appellants. Mr.Arif Bookwala i/by M/s.Ranjit & Co.for Res.No.1. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 17th March, 2008. DATE : 17th March, 2008. DATE : 17th March, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The parties have mutually settled the matter in terms of the Consent Minutes of the Order dated 17.03.2008. The said Consent Minutes of the Order duly signed by the Appellant Nos.1, 2, & 3 as well as by the Respondent No.1 and their Respective Advocates are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. 2. So far as Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 are concerned, it is stated that they are dead. So far as Respondent No.3 (being the original Defendant No.3) viz. Mohini Vithoba Navalkar is concerned, it appears that she has not challenged the decree, which has been challenged in the above Appeal by the Appellants (being the original Defendant Nos.2, 6 & 7). The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 states that though the aforesaid ( 2 ) Respondent No.3 has not challenged the decree, still by the aforesaid Consent Minutes of the Order a sum of Rs.15 lakhs has been provided for her share under clause 4 of the aforesaid Consent Minutes of the Order. 3. Mr.Singh, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out that the Appellant No.1 is mentally impaired and is represented by the Appellant No.2 (being the younger brother), and an affidavit to that effect is filed by the Appellant No.2. 4. In the Consent Minutes of Order a sum of Rs.15 lakhs has been provided for the benefit of Appellant No.1 as stated in clause 3(b) of the Consent Minutes of the Order. 5. Appellant Nos.2 & 3 and the Respondent No.1 are personally present before the Court and they say that they have understood the Consent Minutes of the Order, and that they are agreeable to the same. 6. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Consent Minutes of the Order, in the sense, the decree dated 6.12.2006 which is challenged in this Appeal is confirmed subject to the modification as indicated in the aforesaid Consent Minutes of the Order. Drawing up of the decree is expedited. ( 3 ) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)