Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Mediated Settlements Must Be Honored – Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Full Refund Claim in Property Dispute

07 November 2024 12:04 PM

By: sayum


The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal by N. Jayachandran seeking a full refund and damages in a property sale dispute, thereby upholding the partial decree awarded by the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu emphasized the legitimacy of mediated settlements and the appellant’s acceptance of the terms, despite subsequent challenges to the agreement.

The court found that the appellant, N. Jayachandran, entered into a sale agreement with a clear understanding of the property details and received partial payments as per a mediated settlement. The appellant’s claim of misrepresentation regarding the property title was not substantiated with conclusive evidence.

Justice Babu noted that the understanding letter (Ex.A.3) signed by both parties and mediators was a significant factor in the case. “The terms and conditions of the mediated settlement were voluntarily agreed upon by the appellant, who accepted payments under these terms,” the court observed. The appellant’s later contestation of these terms was dismissed as lacking merit.

The court emphasized the admissions made by the appellant in cross-examination, revealing that he was aware of the property details and had received partial payments as agreed. “The appellant’s acceptance of Rs. 3,00,000 from Srinivasulu and Rs. 1,30,000 from M. Subramanyam Reddy supports the conclusion that the settlement terms were acted upon,” the judgment stated.

The High Court reiterated the principles of contract law, emphasizing that agreements voluntarily entered into by parties are binding. The mediated settlement was upheld as a valid contract, with the court finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant’s failure to prove misrepresentation and defective title, coupled with his acknowledgment of receiving partial payments, led to the dismissal of his claim for the full refund of Rs. 16,20,700 and damages of Rs. 10,00,000. The court maintained the decree of Rs. 2,14,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of the plaint till realization.

Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu remarked, “The terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A.3 were concluded voluntarily by the parties involved. The appellant’s subsequent challenge to these terms lacks merit and fails to undermine the validity of the mediated settlement.”

 

The dismissal of N. Jayachandran’s appeal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of mediated settlements in contract disputes. By affirming the trial court’s findings, the judgment reinforces the legal framework for resolving property disputes and emphasizes the importance of adhering to agreed-upon terms. This decision is expected to impact future cases, highlighting the credibility and enforceability of mediated agreements.

Date of Decision: 19th June 2024

N. Jayachandran vs. E. Sambasiva Reddy

Latest Legal News