Smt. Sudesh & Ors v. Sh. Khazan Singh & Ors

ORDER %

08.09.2009 The plaintiffssought partitionof properties described in paragraph-7&8 of the Suit as well as in the schedule of properties annexed to the Suit. It is contended that the properties belongs to a hindu undivided family and that the first plaintiff,the wife of late Surender, is the mother of the other two plaintiffs.Suit avermentsalso are that the first defendantis the father of late Surender as well as the other defendants being Nos.2 - 5. The defendants had entered appearance and filed their common written statement. During the course of the proceedings,apparently,the parties decided to settle their disputes whereby the defendants agreed to convey title in respectof 300 Sq. Yds. Plot in Khasra No.1140/1and 1140/2each measuring 0-3 biswa in the extended Lai Dora Abadi of village Kapashera. A compromise deed dated 6.5.2009 was signed by the first plaintiff, Ms. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Sudesh. To have the said compromise recorded, the plaintiffs filed I.A.- 6557/2009 which enclosed a copy of the compromise deed as well as the consequential sale deed dated 4.5.2009; the copy placed on record also reveals that sale deed was duly registered. Since the Court was requested to record the compromise in respect of parties, some of whom were minors, the order dated 22.07.2009 required the plaintiffto complywith the terms of Order-32,Rule-7 and certifythat the settlement enure to the benefit of the third plaintiff, the minor. A certificate . to that effect was also filed subsequently. In the meanwhile, the third plaintiffattained the majority on 10.08.2009. In these circumstances,the second application-I.A. No.11345/2009under Order-23, Rule-3 was filed. The Court has considered both the applications. It is also mindful of the fact that the statement of the plaintiffs was recorded on 03.09.2009; statement of the five defendants was also recorded on the same day. The parties stated that they are bound by the terms and conditionsmentionedin the application and the compromise deed - Ex.P-3. The parties also state y, that in compliance with the terms of compromise, a sale deed was duly executed; they identified a copy of it, which is part of the record. In view of the above circumstances, the Court is satisfied that parties have in fact arrived at a lawful settlement resolving all their disputes finally. Let a decree in terms of paragraphs-4, 5 & 6 of the compromise deed dated

6.5.2009 - a copy of which has been placed on record - be drawn. CS (OS) 2001/2007 and all the pending applications are decreed in the above terms. SEPTEMBER 08, 2009 /vd/ • L jLiJiuf

8. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

% ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) 2001/2007 SMT. SUDESH & ORS. Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate. versus SH. KHAZAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Advocate. CORAM: ^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT