The High Court dismissed appeals challenging an order upholding a settlement. The bench found the delay application vague, the claim of coercion insincere given prior negotiations and counsel presence, and the settlement valid as terms were acted upon via cheque encashment.
Appeals and pending applications for recall and delay condonation dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~49 & 50
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent
Present: Mr.Ravi Sikri, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Dhruv Kumra, Advocate for the appellants in item no.49.
Mr.Neeraj Malhotra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sunny Choudhary, Advocates for the appellant in item no.50. Mr.Siddhartha Agarwal, Mr.Aditya Wadhwa, Ms.Debopriya Moulik, Ms.Anushree Malviya and Mr.Abhinav Sekhri, Advocates for the defendants in both the mattes.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M.14576/2019 in RFA(OS) 27/2019 C.M.14580/2019 in RFA(OS) 28/2019 (exemption from filing trial court record)
C.M.14578/2019 in RFA(OS) 27/2019 C.M.14582/2019 in RFA(OS) 28/2019
(exemption from filing court fee)
It is submitted that the court fee stands filed.
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 1 of 8
The applications are dismissed being rendered infructuous.
RFA(OS) 27/2019 & C.M.14577/2019 (delay) RFA(OS) 28/2019 & C.M.14581/2019 (delay)
| Sl.No. | Description of the property |
|---|---|
| 1. | Plot No.J-3A, Green Park Extn., New Delhi |
| 2. | Flat No.102, Building No.32/33, Kushal Bazar, Nehru Place, Delhi. |
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 2 of 8
| 3. | Flat no.105, Building No.32/33, Kushal Bazar, Nehru Place, Delhi. |
|---|---|
| 4. | Residential house bearing No.-RS-12, (Municipal No.379/1, Punjab Bazar) Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. |
| 11. | Agricultural land in revenue estate of Village Chauma in |
| Khasra No. (area) – Khasra No.49/21/1 (5-13), 21/2 (2-7), 65/1 | |
| (8-0), 10 (8-0); 11 (8-0), 20 (8-0), 21/1 (6-0) total measuring 46-0 bighas. |
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 3 of 8
directed to sign the order-sheet, which they did.
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 4 of 8
learned counsel for the brother, the contesting respondent submits that the parties signed the settlement with open eyes. Parties were initiating an out of court settlement, which is evident upon reading the order of 09.03.2018, copy of which is handed over in Court. Additionally, Mr.Aggrarwal submits that even before the Local Commissioner, with a view to resolve the matter amicably, a draft Family settlement had been handed over by the plaintiff to the parties with respect to all the properties and the figure mentioned there was Rs.7.5 crores for the share of all the sisters. Thus, Mr.Aggarwal contends that the appellants were not taken by surprised. They were fully aware that the settlement pertained to all the properties and the payments were made and received as per the terms of the settlement. Additionally, Mr.Aggarwal submits that nothing survives in the matter as all the parties presented the cheques for encashment. The cheques stand duly encashed except in the case of Ms.Mamta Devi whose cheque was returned on account of her having written multiple account number etc. on the back side of the cheque and the plaintiff having encashed Rs.1.60 crores out of Rs.1.70 crores thus, the terms of the settlement stand duly acted upon,
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 5 of 8
regard went in vain; and in that process the delay occurred.”
Page 6 of 8
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
to understand the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff was forced to withdraw the suit. Another ground raised was that the parties were taken by surprise, offer was made in court on the same date cheques were handed over and parties were forced to make a settlement and sign the order sheet. We find no force in the settlement made by learned senior counsels appearing for the appellants for the reason that not only the parties were present at the time of settlement, the counsels as well as the parties have signed the order-sheet. In case, the settlement was only with respect to the Green Park property, there was no reason to plaintiff to withdraw the entire suit. To say that they were taken away by surprise. Reading of the order would show that the parties were in fact, negotiating for a settlement prior to 25.07.2018 as well. Mr.Aggarwal, submits that the defendants had handed over to the plaintiff a family settlement in January, 2017 which was then handed over by the plaintiff to the local commissioner and forms part of the record of the Local Commissioner and filed before the Single Judge, which would also in fact suggest that the settlement offered and considered was composite in nature and not with respect to only one property. We also find that post the settlement having been arrived at on 25.07.2018, order-sheet having been signed by the parties and their respective counsels would show that the appellants were not without legal help or assistance and thus, it cannot be said that they were misled or coerced and fraud has been played upon them and the parties having signed the order-sheet, accepted the settlement, we are unable to find any infirmity in the view taken by the Single Judge. The appellant cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the settlement as on such grounds and moreover there
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 7 of 8
would be no finality in the matters even after there is a settlement. Another factor which cannot be lost track is that all the parties post the dismissal of their applications on 20.08.2018 have acted upon the terms of the settlement, cheques stand encashed and in the case of Ms.Mamta Devi, cheque stands presented. Once the terms of the settlement were acted upon, any act of coercion or fraud complained of stand condoned as the cheques were not deposited after seeking leave of the court nor the deposit of cheques was conditional in nature. We find no grounds to entertain the appeals on merits as well. Accordingly, the appeals and the pending applications being C.M.Nos.14577/2019 and C.M.14581/2019 are dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 23, 2019 rb
RFA (OS) Nos.27/2019 & 28/2019
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing appeals condoned given family relations.
Whether the appellants were coerced or committed fraud affecting the validity of the settlement and order.
Mani Devi & Ors.
Shalu Gupta @ Sheela
Sunil Kumar & Ors.
G.S. Sistani
Jyoti Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
