Allowed

Jatinder Kumar Popli v. Rajiv Popli & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2018EFA(OS)/9/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the appeals against an order directing the appellant to execute a Relinquishment Deed. The judgment disposed of the matter by directing the execution of the deed in favor of the respondent No. 3, subject to an undertaking from that respondent assuming sole responsibility for any future legal consequences arising from the transaction.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed off; Relinquishment Deed allowed to be executed in favor of respondent No. 3, subject to an undertaking by respondent No. 3 regarding future legal consequences.

Jatinder Kumar Popli Vs Rajiv Popli & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

2. In view of the above, the caveat stands discharged.

¶3

C.M.No.26106/2018 in EFA(OS) 9/2018

¶4

C.M.No.26458/2018 in EFA(OS) 10/2018

¶5

Subject to the applicant filing the certified/typed/legiblecopies of the documents annexed with the petition within four weeks, the applicationis allowedanddisposedof.

¶6

EFA(OS) 9/2018 & EFA (OS) 10/2018

¶7

The. present appeals have been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by a common order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Executing Court on the Original Side in Execution Petition no.18/2018 filed by the respondent no.3 herein/decree holder and in Execution Petition no.21/2018 filed by the appellant herein/decree holder.

¶8

2.' By the impugned order the Learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to execute- the necessary Relinquishnient Deed/ Conveyance Deed in respect of premises bearing no..S-396, Greater Kailash-II,New Delhi in favour of the respondentno.3(fatherof the, respondentno.1 and brother,of the respondentno.2), withinsixweeks. from the date of passing of the said order.

¶9

A perusalof the impugnedorderrevealsthat both the captioned Execution Petitionswere filed by, the respective decree holders" (appellantand the respondentno.3 in the presentproceeding)seeking . executionof the judgmentand decree dated 15.12.2017,passedon the basis of a settlement recorded between the parties in Court on

¶10

•- 31.08.2017.

¶11

EFA(OS) 9/2018&10/2018

¶12

page 2of5.

¶13

After reproducingthe terms and conditions of the settlement, arrived at between the parties as recorded on 31.08.20,17, in para 2 of the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge stated that the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein are siblings arid that the respondentno.l' herein is the son^ of the respondent no.3,. The learned Single Judge further noted that as per the teirns and conditions of the settlement, it was agreed that the respondent nos.l and 2 would pay a sum of Rs.3.20 crores to the appellant in full arid final settlement of all his claims. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.20 crores, the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the plaintiff no.l in the suit i.e. Radha Swami Satsang Beas. Further, it was noted that the said sum of Rs. 3.20 crores was to be paid by the respondent no.3 herein on behalf of the respondent nos.l and 2, before the SubRegistrar and the appellant was required to execute a Relinquishment Deed relinquishing all his rights, title and interest in the subject property, in favour of respondent nos.l and 2.

¶14

It is a matter of record that the respondent,no.3 has paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to Radha Swami Satsang Beas (plaintiff no.l in the suit), and.thereafter, plairitiff no.l had withdrawn the suit. This left a balance sum of Rs.2.80 crores payable to the appellant. Out of the aforesaid amount,the respondentno.3 had depositeda sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in the Registry, leaving a balance sum of Rs. 2.70 crores as payable to the appellarit.

¶15

The only grievanceraised by the appellant in the execution petitionwas that he was agreeable to- executing a Relinquishment EFA(OS) 9/2018& 10/2018 page3of5

¶16

page3of5

¶17

Deed in favour of the respondent nos.l and 2 alone and not in favour of the respondent no.3.

' ,

,, ' _

•

y'''

, ,

Taking note of the fact that the respondent no.3 had filed on record the NOCs of the respondent nos. 1, and 2 executed in his favour, stating inter alia that the respondent no.2 had already executed a - Relinquishment Deed in favour of the respondent no.3 and the aforesaid respondent nos.l & 2 had no objection if the appellant herein would execute a RelinquishmentDeed, transferrinjghis 1/3'^'^' share of the subject property in favour of the respondent no.3, as also the fact that the respondent no.1 had executed a power of attorney ill favour of his father i.e. respondent no.3 stating therein that he had no objection to the appellant herein executing a relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent-no.3, the learned Single Judge opined that the appellant had sought to raise a needless controversy and once he would receive a sum of Rs. 2.80 crores as his share in the suit . property, which the respondent no.3 was ready and willing to pay, then there was no question of any apprehension in his mind with regardto.evasionofthe stampduty etc., by the respondents.

¶27

As a result,the impugnedorder came to be passeddirectingthe appellantto execute the RelinquishmentDeed/ ConveyanceDeed in favour of the respondent no.3 within six weeks reckoned from the date of passing of the said order.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that the.appellantis" aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that he has an apprehensionthat the respondentno.1, who is a ptoanent citizenof ' ' EFA(OS)9/2018&10/2018 , , , . ^page 4of5

¶29

U.S.A, may renege from the NOC given by him in favour of his father, respondent no.3 or lay a claim against the appellant and, similarly,issues may be raised by Governmentauthoritiesincluding the Collectorate of Stamps and the Income Tax, Department with regardto the legalityor validityof the RelinquishmentDeed executed by respondentno.2 in favour of the respondentno.3.

¶30

We are of the opinion that, the appellant's aforesaid apprehensioncan be assuagedby directingthe respondentno.3 to file an.undertaking in the executionproceedingto the effect that he shall be solely responsiblefor any legal consequencesthat may flow if the respondentno.l reneged from the NOC or on account of any claim, by the Governmentagencieswith regard to the RelinquishmentDeed executed by the respondent no.2 in his favour. An affidavit to the said effect shall be filed by the respondent no.3 within one week in the aforesaid Execution- Petitions with copies furnished to•the appellant.

¶31

The appealsare disposedof alongwiththe pendingapplications.

¶32

JULY 09,2018 sr EFA(OS) 9/2018 & 10/2018

¶33

HIMA KOHLI,J
REKH LI, J
1
. page 5 of 5

Jatinder Kumar Popli v. Rajiv Popli & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Kumar Popli v. Rajiv Popli & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuradha Dhaul and Anr. Vs Directorate of Estate and Anr.

Ex. Constable (Driver) Shyam Sunder No. 271/SB Vs Lt. Governer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramesh Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Const. Veramani T Vs Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Jatinder Kumar Popli Vs Ashok Kumar Popli

Ex. Hc/Gd Suraj Bhan Vs Union of India and Ors.