Allowed¶12

Ravinder Sehrawat & Ors. v. Sh Hoshiyar Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Mar 2026CS(OS)/575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CS(OS) 575/2024, Delhi High Court, order dated 09.03.2026, Justice Vikas Mahajan; joint application by plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1-5 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC; settlement by oral partition dated 27.08.2024 reduced to memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026; terms held lawful; suit decreed in terms of memorandum and annexed site plan (site plan forms part of decree); parties bound; defendant no. 7 share 333 sq. yds., consent without prejudice to CS(OS) 377/2021; defendant no. 6 (Mohit Chaudhary, third party) present in person, no objection; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 and the site plan annexed thereto (forming part of the decree); decree sheet to be drawn; parties bound by the memorandum's terms. ¶12

Ravinder Sehrawat & Ors. Vs Sh Hoshiyar Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the joint application of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking decree of the suit in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026, should be allowed. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The joint application was allowed and disposed of.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Court perused the terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 and found them lawful.

¶10

Key takeaways

Having found the terms lawful, the Court did not find any impediment in decreeing the suit in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.ratio¶10 (contd.)
The suit was decreed in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 and the site plan annexed thereto, which shall form part of the decree; the decree sheet was ordered to be drawn accordingly.ratio¶12
The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 09.03.2026 in CS(OS) 575/2024: On a joint application by the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking decree of the suit in terms of a memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 (recording an oral partition of 27.08.2024 arrived at during the pendency of the suit), the Court perused the terms, found them lawful, and saw no impediment in decreeing the suit accordingly. The application was allowed and disposed of; the suit was decreed in terms of the memorandum and the annexed site plan, which form part of the decree, with the decree sheet to be drawn accordingly and all parties remaining bound by the memorandum's terms. Defendant no. 7 acknowledged a 333 Sq. Yds. share (shown brown in the site plan) and consented to the settlement being recorded, expressly without prejudice to her rights and contentions in CS(OS) 377/2021; defendant no. 6 (a third party) was present in person and raised no objection. No precedent cases were cited.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 575/2024

¶4

RAVINDER SEHRAWAT & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, Ms. Vidhi Kumar, Mr. Ashish Bhardwaj, Ms. Manika Gaba and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SH HOSHIYAR SINGH & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Ganesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate for D1. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms. Prachi Sohi, Advocates for defendant nos. 2 to 6 with defendant no. 6 in person. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Mr. Vikalp Chandela and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocates for D7.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 09.03.2026

¶9

CS(OS) 575/2024 and I.A. 5754/2026 (Joint application filed on behalf of plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC)

¶10

The present joint application has been filed by the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 for decreeing the suit in terms of memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.

¶11

The plaintiffs are represented by Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate, whereas defendant no.1 is represented by Mr. Ganesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate and defendant nos. 2 to 6 are represented by Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate. Defendant no. 6 is stated to be a third party.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:15:09

¶13

Learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties submits that during the pendency of the present suit, the parties have settled their disputes by way of oral partition dated 27.08.2024, terms whereof were subsequently reduced in writing in the form of memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.

¶14

It is stated that the parties shall have their respective shares in the suit property as mentioned in the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 and the site plan annexed thereto.

¶15

The memorandum of oral partition has been signed by the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5.

¶16

Mr. Rajeev Ghawana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 7 submits that the defendant no. 7 has also got her share in the suit property to the extent of 333 Sq. Yds. shown in brown colour in the site plan attached to memorandum of oral partition.

¶17

He, therefore, contends that insofar as suit property is concerned, defendant no.7 has no objection with regard to the settlement being recorded. He contends that his submission is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of defendant no.7 in CS(OS) 377/2021.

¶18

Defendant no. 6, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, is also present in the Court in-person. He states that he has no objection in case the present application is allowed.

¶19

The application is signed by all the plaintiffs as well as defendant nos. 1 to 5. Further the application is also supported by their respective affidavits.

¶20

I have perused the terms of memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026, the same are lawful. Therefore, this Court does not find any

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:15:09

¶23

impediment in decreeing the suit in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.

¶24

In view of the above, application is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

The suit is decreed in terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026 and the site plan annexed thereto, which shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

¶26

The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the memorandum of oral partition dated 19.01.2026.

¶27

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶28

MARCH 9, 2026/ jg

¶29

Ravinder Sehrawat & Ors. v. Sh Hoshiyar Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Sehrawat & Ors. v. Sh Hoshiyar Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Pershad Vs Nitin Goel & Anr.

Bimla Rani Gupta Vs Suresh Gupta & Anr.

Punam Seth Vs Swati Tandon

Neelam Bhatia & Anr. Vs Puneet Bhatia & Ors.

Pran Nath Chadha & Ors. Vs Chetanya Build Con India Private Limited

Ramesh Kumar Vs Sh Mohinder Singh

Gamut Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Atul Verma and Anr.

Shalini Mittal Vs Birjesh Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.

Abhiyan Capital (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sharabati & Ors.

Rattanindia Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nestiva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Rajesh Rai Vs Delhi Development Authority

Fiitjee Ltd., & Anr. Vs Benneet and Coleman & Co. & Ors.

Pran Nath Chadha & Ors. Vs Chetanya Build Con India Private Limited

Delhi Development Authority Vs Kunal Food Products Pvt. Ltd.