JUDGMENT : (Nisha M. Thakore, J.) 1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah appearing with Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate on record for the appellants. Learned advocates Mr. Himanshu C. Desai and Mr. H.B. Champavat appearing for the respective respondents have not remained present. Learned advocate Mr. P.P. Kasvala appearing for the respondent nos.10 and 11 is present. 2. This Court, vide order dated 17.10.2024, had taken upon record the consent terms entered into between the original plaintiffs-appellants herein and last purchasers, who are joined as respondent nos.10 and 11 in the present proceedings. The respective parties to the consent terms have appeared in person and have confirmed the facts of the settlement arrived at between them. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the appellants and the respondent nos.10 and 11, noticing the absence of learned advocate for respondent nos.1 to 8, the matter was adjourned, to have their response to the aforesaid settlement to pass appropriate order. 4. The challenge in the First Appeal is, the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No.46 of 1983. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge has partly allowed the suit qua the original plaintiff no.1; however, the suit has not been entertained qua the plaintiff no.2. The learned Judge while partly allowing the suit has further directed the original defendant no.4 to make payment of an amount of Rs.25,500/- from the date of filing of the suit, till its realization with 12% interest. 5. Going through the record, it transpires that essentially noticing the fact that the original plaintiff no.2 is a legal entity registered as a partnership firm was not holding the status of agriculturist so as to derive any lawful rights in the suit properties which are the agricultural lands. The specific issue in this regard was framed by the trial court, wherein in issue no.3, the defendant nos.1 to 3 were called upon to prove that, whether the plaintiffs could have entered into the transaction with respect to the suit lands, in view of specific bar contained in Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 6. Noticing the aforesaid controversy involved and in light of the consent terms entered into between the parties to the settlement, it appears that the original plaintiff no.2 is one of the party to the settlement. 6. Noticing the aforesaid controversy involved and in light of the consent terms entered into between the parties to the settlement, it appears that the original plaintiff no.2 is one of the party to the settlement. It would be appropriate to reproduce the consent terms of the agreement dated 16.10.2024, which is placed on record, and read as under: “AGREEMENT ON CONSENT TERMS This agreement is being executed on 16th day of October, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Between; 1. Vasharambhai Nanabhai Katariya, Male, Aged 47 years, Occupation: Agriculturist , Residing at Charvada, Sadak Faliyu, Taluka: Vapi, District: Valsad 2. Ajaybhai Menandbhai Khimaniya, Male, Aged 42 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Residing at Vrundavan Apartment, Tithlal Road, District: Valsad (Hereinafter referred to as parties to the FIRST PART or LATEST PURCHASERS) And 3. Heirs of Deceased Maganlal Motichand Shah 3.1. Shri Ullas Maganlal Shah, Male, Aged 60 years, Residing at Vrandavan Building, A/103, Umate Ashram Raod, S.V. Road, Borivali (west), Mumbai 3.2 Smt. Sheela Sharadkumar Shah, Female, Aged 55 years, Residing at 803, Ratilal Thakkar, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006 3.3 Shri Chinubhai Maganlal Shah, Male, Aged 65 years, Residing at Bhakti Apt., A-222 Opp. Jain Temple, Jambli Gali, Borivali (west) Mumbai 3.4 Rajesh Maganlal Shah, Male, Aged 58 years, Residing at Sagardeep Darshan, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Borivali (west), Mumbai 3.2 herein through her Power of Attorney Holder Chinubhai @ Kamleshbhai Maganlal Shah i.e., 3.3 herein vide POA dated 25.10.2001. (Hereinafter referred to as parties to the SECOND PART or LEGAL HEIRS OF PLAINTIFFS NO.1) And 4. M/s. Jain Development Corporation, A Partnership Firm through, its partners Sureshchandra Devchand Shah and Pravin Ratanchand Shah having office at 201, Vardhaman Chambers, 17-G, Kavasji Patel Street Fort, Mumbai 400001 and Bagwada National Highway No.08., Nr. Gujarat Metal Rolling Mills, Taluka: Pardi, District: Valsad. (Hereinafter referred to as party to the THIRD PART or PLAINTIFF NO.2) THE PARTIES ABOVENAMED HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2134 OF 2002 IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREINBELOW ON THE CONSENT TERMS MENTIONED AFTER NARRATION OF HISTORY: SCHEDULE New Survey/Block No. Old Survey No. Area (H-ARE-SQ.M) 226 73 2-93-42 230 72 1-06-73 229 78/Paiki 1 0-73-89 227 77/Paiki 1 0-37-45 HISTORY: - The aforesaid Schedule Properties were owned by one Chunilal Bhagaji Shah. - The legal heir of deceased Chunilal Bhagaji Shah i.e., Ashokumar Chunilal Shah has executed an Agreement of Tenancy in favor of the THIRD PART herein on 27.03.1980 and possession was handed over. - Whereas, Ashokkumar Chunilal Shah vide agreement to sell dated 10.07.1980 has agreed to sale the aforesaid properties to the predecessor of SECOND PART i.e., Maganlal Motichand Shah. - The parties to the SECOND PART and THIRD PART herein have jointly instituted suit being Special Civil Suit being 46 of 1983 before the Ld. Civil Court, Valsad for specific performance of agreement dated 10.07.1980 and for permanent injunction against the heirs of the Original Ownerdeceased Chunilal Bhagaji Shah i.e., 1. Mandanben Wd/o Chunilal Shah, 2. Dhansukhlal Chunilal Shah, 3. Chandrakant Chunilal Shah, 4. Ashok Chunilal Shah, 5. Parsanben Chunilal Shah, 6. Vasuben Chunilal Shah, 7. Ushaben Chunilal Shah and 8. Naynaben Chunilal Shah (hereinafter referred to as ‘Original Defendants’ or ‘Heirs of original owner’). - The aforesaid suit came to be dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.09.2002. - Against the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 09.09.2002, the parties to the SECOND PART and THIRD PART herein have filed First Appeal No.2134 of 2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same is pending. - During the aforesaid proceeding, - Mandanben Wd/o Chunilal Bhagaji Shah has expired on 02.03.1995. - Ashok Chunilal Shah has expired on 28.07.2005 and his legal heirs were brought on record in the proceeding before the Hon’ble Court. - Parsanben Chunilal Shah died on 29.09.2021 and his legal heirs were brough on record in the proceeding before the Hon’ble Court. - Pending First Appeal No.2134 of 2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the legal heirs have sold their shares in the properties mentioned in the schedule by different registered Sale deeds in favour of parties to the FIRST PART. Details of Sale Deeds are as under: SR. NO. VENDOR DATE OF SALE TRANSACTION SALE DEED NO. 1. Heirs of Ashok Chunilal Shah in favour of Rajeshbhai Parmar and Sandeepbhai Ahir Rajeshbhai Parmar and Sandeepbhai Ahir sold the ladns to FIRST PART 30.09.2021 29.12.2023 2643 4156 2. Dhansukhlal Chunilal Shah and Chandrakant Chunilal Shah 27.06.2023 2338 3. Heirs of Parsanben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3344 4. Vasuben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3343 5. Ushaben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3342 6. 1. Heirs of Ashok Chunilal Shah in favour of Rajeshbhai Parmar and Sandeepbhai Ahir Rajeshbhai Parmar and Sandeepbhai Ahir sold the ladns to FIRST PART 30.09.2021 29.12.2023 2643 4156 2. Dhansukhlal Chunilal Shah and Chandrakant Chunilal Shah 27.06.2023 2338 3. Heirs of Parsanben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3344 4. Vasuben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3343 5. Ushaben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3342 6. Naynaben Chunilal Shah 05.10.2023 3348 - Ultimately, all the legal heirs of original owner- Deceased Chunilal Bhagaji Shah have transferred their rights, title and interest qua schedule lands in favour of the parties to the FIRST PART by registered sale deeds and accordingly, parties to the FIRST PART herein are joined in the proceeding being First Appeal No.2134 of 2002 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat as Respondent Nos.10 and 11 vide Order dated 20.09.2024. - The latest purchasers i.e, parties to the FIRST PART herein have agreed to settle the dispute with parties to the SECOND PART and THIRD PART i.e., Appellants in the First Appeal on the following terms. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT: 1. The parties to the FIRST PART shall jointly pay a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the parties to the SECOND PART and the SECOND PART have received and accepted 4 Demand Drafts each amounting Rs. 6,25,000/- from the Party to the FIRST PART qua the aforesaid lands. Upon receipt of the said amount, parties to the SECOND PART would not further claim any right, title or interest in the Schedule properties. In compliance to the same, the Parties to the SECOND PART. 2. The parties to the FIRST PART shall transfer a portion of land bearing Block/Survey No. 230 (Old Survey No. 72) duly earmarked admeasuring 16,026.61 Sq. meters at moje: Tighra to the THIRD PART herein without any consideration after conversion and/or obtaining permission for non-agricultural use. A copy of the earmarked portion of Block/Survey No. 230 (Old Survey No. 72) is attached herewith. Boundaries of aforesaid land: East: Survey No. 230paiki West: Survey No. 229 North: Survey No. 226 South: Road 3. It is agreed that FIRST PART shall bear the cost i.e., stamp duty, premium for NA use permission, other expense, legal fees, etc., for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed in favour of THIRD PART. 4. Boundaries of aforesaid land: East: Survey No. 230paiki West: Survey No. 229 North: Survey No. 226 South: Road 3. It is agreed that FIRST PART shall bear the cost i.e., stamp duty, premium for NA use permission, other expense, legal fees, etc., for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed in favour of THIRD PART. 4. The FIRST PART shall apply for aforesaid permission before the competent authority within 60 days from the date of the present agreement. During the process for obtaining NA use permission and till the Sale Deed is executed in favour of the THIRT PART, the party to the FIRST PART shall not create any third party rights including sale, agreement to sell, mortgage, Will, etc. and shall not create any charge/incumbrance on the earmarked land mentioned in clause 2 herein above. 5. In case of breach of any of the term/s, party aggrieved is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for revival of First Appeal No. 2134 of 2002. These terms shall not be changed, waived, discharged, or amended except that any term may be amended and the observance of any term may be waived with (but only with) the written consent of the Parties which shall be signed and recorded in writing. No such waiver shall extend to or affect any obligation not expressly waived or impair any right therein.” 7. Reading of the consent terms of the agreement indicates that except for block/survey no.230 admeasuring 16,026.61 sq. mtrs. of village-Tighra, the parties to the consent terms have arrived at settlement whereby the original plaintiffs have agreed to accept the total amount of Rs.25 Lakhs by way of four demand drafts as against their right, title or interest in respect of the schedule properties is concerned. So far as block/survey no.230 (old survey no.72) admeasuring 16,026.61 sq. mtrs is concerned, it is agreed that said land shall be transferred in favour of the third party i.e. the original plaintiff no.2-Firm, after conversion and/or obtaining permission for non-agricultural use. It is further agreed that the parties to the first part shall not create any third party rights including sale, agreement to sell, mortgage, Will etc., and shall not create any charge/encumbrance on the earmarked land i.e. block/survey no.230, till the land is transferred in favour of the third party i.e. original plaintiff no.2. 8. It is further agreed that the parties to the first part shall not create any third party rights including sale, agreement to sell, mortgage, Will etc., and shall not create any charge/encumbrance on the earmarked land i.e. block/survey no.230, till the land is transferred in favour of the third party i.e. original plaintiff no.2. 8. Considering the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, and in absence of any objection being raised by the respondent nos.1 to 8, the present First Appeal stands disposed of, in terms of the aforesaid settlement being arrived at between the parties to the settlement. 9. The parties are directed to act as per the consent terms of agreement, which is placed on record. 10. With these observations and directions, present First Appeal stands disposed of. Civil Application stands disposed of, accordingly.