Jamia Hamdard Deemed University v. 1. Hamdard National Foundation (India), A Society Registered Under the Societies Registration Act,

judgment cited.

¶33The appellant University has also impleaded to this appeal the University Grants Commission (UGC) as respondent No. 7 though UGC also was not a party to the suits in which the decree was passed. The counsel for UGC also appears on advance notice and we are confident that if anything contrary to law is happening in the appellant University, the UGC will take appropriate action.

¶34The application of the appellant University for leave to appeal is thus dismissed and axiomatically the appeal is also dismissed.

¶35However no costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

ASHA MENON, J. OCTOBER 01, 2020 (Corrected and released on 12th October, 2020) "gsr"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st October, 2020 + JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY).... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Mohd. Shaz Khan & Mr. Udit Atul Konkanthankar, Advs. Versus HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Adv. for R- 1&2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal & Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Advs. for R-1,3&6. Mr. Apoorv Kurup & Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advs. for R-7/UGC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM Nos. 24607/2020, 24611/2020 and 24612/2020 (all for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules. 2. The applications are disposed of. RFA (OS) No. 36/2020, CM Nos.24604/2020 (for permission to file the instant appeal) , 24605/2020 (for stay), 24606/2020 (for condation of 2 days delay in filing the appeal), 24608/2020 (for permission to file additional documents), 24609/2020 (for calling for suit record) and 24610/2020 (for impleadment of University Grants Commission (UGC) as respondent No. 7) 3. The challenge in this Regular First Appeal (RFA), is to the common order dated 13th December, 2019 of the Single Judge of this Court, in as many as six suits i.e. CS(OS) Nos.162/2017, 211/2017, 326/2017, 60/2018, 583/2018 and 164/2017, decreeing the suits in terms of the Deed of Family Settlement dated 22nd October, 2019 between the family members who were parties to the suits. Though it appears that besides family members, certain others also were parties to the suits but the said others were not parties to the Deed of Family Settlement dated 22nd October, 2019. 4. The challenge is made, not by any of the parties to the suits or by any of the parties to the Deed of Family Settlement, but by a non-party i.e. Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant University). The appeal is thus inter alia accompanied with CM No.24604/2020 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to prefer the appeal inspite of being a non-party to the suits from which the appeal arises. 5. We have heard the counsel for the appellant without going into the aspect of maintainability of a single appeal from the decree in as many as six suits. 6. The Deed of Family Settlement dated 22nd October, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the "Family Settlement") in terms whereof the suits were decreed, was executed between (i) Abdul Majeed and (ii) Asad Mueed, both sons of Late Janab Abdul Mueed Sahib, of the one part, described in the Deed of Family Settlement dated 22nd October, 2019 as "HLT Group"; and, (iii) Janab Hammad Ahmed Sahib and his sons (iv) Hamid Ahmed and (v) Sajid Ahmed, on the other part and described in the Deed of Family Settlement dated 22nd October, 2019 as "HFI Group". We will refer to both factions collectively as "Hamdard Family". 7. Being of the prima facie opinion that the decree impugned being a compromise decree and which can bind and indeed binds only the parties thereto and is incapable of binding non-parties, we have, at the outset, enquired from the counsel for the appellant University, how the appellant University can be the "person aggrieved". 8. The counsel for the appellant University has drawn attention to the application seeking leave to appeal where it is pleaded that, (a) the Compromise Decree, particularly in terms of Clause 35 with Annexures VI and VII thereto and Clause 36, of the Family Settlement, propose to create obligations upon the appellant University; (b) the appellant University is a deemed university and is governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 and the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019; (c) the appellant University, inspite of being a non-party to the suits in which decree was passed, is a "person aggrieved" from the j