Mr. Manmeet Singh vs Ms. Pushpinder Paul Kaul Rana ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 342 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

IA No.5785/2001 in CS(OS)1242/2000

IA NO.5787/2001 in CS(OS)1243/2000

1. These are applications filed under section 151 CPC seeking to set aside a consent decree passed on 25.09.2000.

2. There were agreements to sell executed by the defendant in favor of two parties being husband and wife who have filed two separate suits. Disputes had arisen between the parties resulting in the suit proceedings.

3. The settlement was recorded on 25.09.2000 in court when the defendant was present. The balance amount was paid to the defendant. The defendant appeared before the Sub Registrar on 26.09.2000 for registration of the sale deed and on 28.09.2000 handed over letters for withdrawal of complaints made to the police authorities during the pendency of the disputes between the parties. Such complaints were treated to have been withdrawn on 03.10.2000. The present application has been filed on 12.06.2001.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant is that the compromise was signed under coercion and undue influence and a fraud has been played on the court by concealment of material documents. It is further stated by the defendants that the agreement is opposed to public policy.

5. Insofar as the issue of coercion and undue influence is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that the defendant appeared in court on the date of the settlement. The case sought to be made out is that the economic wing of the Delhi Police on complaints of the plaintiff had detained father and brother of the defendant. It is however not in dispute that the defendant appeared in court and was represented by a lawyer when the settlement was recorded. The defendant did not plead before the court that there was any unlawful detention of her relations which may have compelled her to agree to the settlement.

6. It is also to be noticed that the defendant had filed criminal writ petition no. 733/2001 in respect of some of her complaints not being processed. A stand had been taken that the defendant had never appeared in the court while now it is admitted that the defendant did appear in the court. The statement of the defendant has been recorded today and she has given no satisfactory explanation as to why she took such a false stand in the criminal writ proceedings. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that an attempt was made to create an impression before the court as if the compromise was arrived at the back of the defendant. The statement recorded today of the defendant also shows inherent contradictions in her statement. She has stated certain facts in the affidavits which are contrary to pleas elsewhere and no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming in that behalf. Dated: 24.02.2006 CS(OS) No:1242/2000 Statement of Ms Pushpinder Paul Rana, D/o Sh. G.P.Rana, 23 years, R/o B-15, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi-110027. on SA I was present in court on 25.09.2000. The statement was recorded by the court in my presence. My father and my brother were in the Economic Wing of Delhi Police at that time. I did not inform the court about the same. I had filed a criminal writ petition no. 733/2001. It is correct that in the said writ petition an affidavit was filed to the effect that I was detained outside of the court premises and had not come to court. That was a mistake as I had appeared in the court. I appeared before the Office of the Sub Registrar on 26.09.2000. My brother accompanied me to the Sub Registrar's Office but my father was in the Economic Wing. I had been handed over the cheques in court at the time of the settlment. I had presented the cheques to the Bank. I did so since I was given to understand by the plaintiff that I would be paid the balance amount out of the total consideration of Rs 87 lakh which according to me was the consideration agreed upon. I had withdrawn the complaints earlier made against the plaintiff after registration of the sale deed. I do not exactly remember when I withdrew the complaint. I lodged a complaint after 20.10.2000 once the marriage of my brother was complete. I had got this complaint diarized myself. Page no. 306 of the paper book of civil writ no. 733/2001 has been shown to me wherein it is stated that police authorities refused to acknowledge my letter dated 20.10.2000. I cannot say as to why this was set out in the writ petition since I am now stating that the complaint was received and was even responded to. I may have filed an application to withdraw the settlement which was arrived at in the court. I was under stress at that time and I am under stress now. I have been shown the signatures in the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 5787/2001. They appear to be my signatures but at times my signatures have been forged, so I cannot say with certainty. The application has been shown to me which is signed by me. I had read the application. It is correct that I filed the application about nine months after the compromise was recorded. The delay in filing the application is occasioned by reason of the fact that I was filing complaints before the women cell and other authorities and I was also receiving messages from the plaintiff for settlement. I had continued my education till the second year in the open university. I was at home and not working. The property in suit was gifted to me by my mother. The property was originally in the name of aunt of my father who had given it to my mother. My father and my brother used to deal with the property matters and other matters at the relevant times when the documentation was done.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the peculiar situation of the defendant has to be kept in mind. Even if some indulgence is given to the averments made by the defendant, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the defendant accepted the cheques and encashed the same. There was no occasion to encash the cheques and in the statement given today all that the defendant has stated is she was expecting further amounts from the plaintiff. Such a plea cannot be accepted especially on account of the surrounding circumstances which the defendant has set forth making out a case of coercion and undue influence. In such a situation, it can hardly be accepted that the defendant would have presumed that the plaintiff was likely to pay some further amount to the defendant.

8. The defendant apart from making complaints never moved any proceedings by this court for almost for a period of 9 months. This further shows her acquiescence and acceptance of the transaction in question.

9. Learned counsel for the defendant also seeks to advance the plea that a fraud has been played on the court by concealment of material facts. In this behalf, learned counsel has referred to the documents filed on record including the letter dated 13.04.2000 addressed by the plaintiff to the SHO of the local police station when the disputes were pending prior to the settlement where there is a reference about the part payment having been made. Learned counsel states that this document ought to have been produced before the court and possibly the court would not have recorded the compromise in that eventuality.

10. I fail to appreciate the significance of this document inasmuch as it was for the parties to agree to transfer a property at a particular consideration. The defendant willingly agreed to transfer the property in pursuance to the settlement and further acted on the settlement. In such a case there is no merit made out in respect of the plea of any fraud played on the court.

11. I am equally unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the defendant about the agreement being opposed to public policy. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that the stated consideration is below the market consideration. Both the parties have agreed to the settlement and that is what the court has recorded.

12. There can be no dispute about the plea of the learned counsel for the defendant that a compromise recorded on a settlement cannot be put on a higher pedestrian than an agreement. However the present case is one where two parties have agreed to certain terms and conditions and acted in pursuance thereof.

13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has brought to the notice of this court a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Gangadeep Pratisthan Pvt. Ltd and Ors v. Mechano and Ors ; II (2005) SLT 700. That was also a case of a consent decree which was sought to be challenged subsequently on the ground that the consent was vitiated by duress and coercion. The cheques given in pursuance to the compromise had been encashed. The Apex Court held that such encashment itself is a proof that the party has bound himself to the terms of the settlement and thus there is no requirement of any further enquiry in that matter. In my considered view, the ratio squarely applies to the facts of the present case as the defendant encashed the cheques and for nine months did not make any application to set aside the compromise.

14. I find that the applications are without merit and misconceived. I would have imposed costs but for the fact that the defendant is a young lady and this court can only hope that such conduct would not be repeated in future.

15. Dismissed. IA No.5786/2001 and IA No.5788/2001 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) Dismissed. Crl. M.Nos.1558/2001 and 1556/2001 (under Section 340 Cr.P.C.) and IA No.5359/2002 (under Section 340 Cr.P.C.) I do not consider it appropriate to proceed further on these applications filed by either the plaintiff or the defendants. The same stand disposed of. IA No.1080/2006.

Dismissed.