Smt. Lilawati & Ors. vs Sh. Trilok Chand Gupta & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 2211 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision : December 10, 2008

+                       RFA 218/2007

        SMT. LILAWATI & ORS.                 ..... Appellants
                  Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate and
                           Mr. Ravinder Yadav, Advocate


                             versus


        SH. TRILOK CHAND GUPTA & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Ramit Malhotra, Adv. for R-1
                           Mr. J.P.Gupta, Adv. for R-2

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.       Whether Reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.       To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.       Whether the judgment should be
         reported in the Digest?


Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute

has been settled between the parties as per deed of settlement

executed today itself i.e. 10.12.2008.

2. The original deed of settlement has been handed

over in Court and for facility of identification has been marked

as AW-1.

3. Counsel pray that the instant appeal may be

disposed of as per the settlement and even the suit may be

finally disposed of recording the settlement.

4. Trilok Chand Gupta, respondent No.1 filed a suit

seeking partition of property bearing No.65/67, New Rohtak

Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Except for defendant No.5, his sister

Hem Lata who supported him, the claim was opposed.

5. Dispute was on inheritance after Kanihya Lal Gupta,

the registered owner and the predecessor-in-interest of the

parties died. A will dated 21.9.1980 was set up to oppose the

claim, alleging the same to be the last legal and valid testament

of the deceased.

6. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated

12.1.2007 suit has succeeded. The will has been held not to be

the last legal and valid testament of the deceased. Litigating

parties have been held to be entitled to 1/6th share each in the

property of the deceased.

7. The deceased was survived by four sons, a wife and a

daughter. Thus, entitlement of each has been held to be 1/6 th.

8. The appellant challenges the preliminary decree

dated 12.1.2007 holding as aforesaid.

9. As per the settlement between the parties, the 1/6 th

share of each party has been accepted by the appellants.

10. The parties have formed two groups. The plaintiff of

the suit, Trilok Chand Gupta, and his sister Hem Lata have

formed one group. The remaining three brothers and the

mother have formed the second group.

11. It has been agreed that in lieu of their 1/6th share

each in the property, Trilok Chand Gupta and Hem Lata shall be

paid Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) within 1 (one)

year. Default shall entail interest on said amount @ 10% per

annum for the delayed period.

12. The deed of settlement AW-1 is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the parties affirm having witnessed the

same. We note that counsel for the parties have signed as

witnesses to the deed of settlement.

13. The appeal stands disposed of affirming the

impugned decree and proceeding ahead we pass a final decree

directing that in lieu of their 1/6th share each in property bearing

Municipal No.65/67, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi,

Trilok Chand Gupta and Hem Lata shall be paid Rs.60,00,000/-

(Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) each within 1 (one) year; if there is a

delay, for the delayed period the said sum shall carry interest @

10% per annum. On receipt of the money, Trilok Chand Gupta

and Hem Lata shall execute the required documents conveying

their 1/6th share each in the property in favour of the other co-

owners.

14. Needless to state parties would be bound by the

deed of settlement.

15. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

DECEMBER 10, 2008 mm