MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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