Delhi High Court
Pramod Khanna & Anr. vs Subod Khanna & Anr. on 6 July, 2009
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ IA No.14661/2008 in CS (OS) No.2203/2006
Judgment reserved on: 19th March, 2009
% Judgment decided on : 6th July, 2009
PRAMOD KHANNA & ANR. ...Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Sandeep Agarwal with Mr. K.A.
Singh, Advs.
Versus
SUBOD KHANNA & ANR. ....Defendants
Through : Mr. G.D. Chopra, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The Plaintiffs filed present interim application being IA no.
14661/2008 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 on 26.11.2008 for variation of the order dated
18.04.2007 as amended on 23.05.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants
CS(OS) No. 2203/2006 1 of 5
with respect to property No.W- 105, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi 110048
(hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟). The Plaintiffs submit that Plaintiff
No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 are brothers and the family owned several
properties in Delhi and NCR. Due to certain disputes between their families,
they submitted their differences to Sh. Punam Suri and Sh. Prem Nath
Chopra of M/s Daily Milap Pvt. Ltd. for conciliation. A Family Settlement
was arrived at after much deliberation as part of which the Defendants were
to give a certain sum of money to the Plaintiffs, as their share of the
properties was of considerably much more value. The Defendants paid part
of this sum and allegedly refused to pay the rest, failing to complete their
obligation under the purported family settlement. The Plaintiffs also submit
that in the wake of the Defendant‟s request to the MCD for mutation of the
suit property, the Plaintiffs intimated the MCD about the incomplete
settlement which allegedly will have no effect till the defendants complete
their obligation under it and both the parties sign it and get it registered.
3. On the other hand, the Defendants submit that the negotiations ended
on 24.03.2006 with an oral settlement which was reduced into a written
family settlement on 04.04.2006 and that there was no requirement of
signatures of either party nor was there any direction to the Defendants to
pay any money to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants deny that the settlement
was drawn up by the alleged conciliators and submit that it was in fact
prepared by the legal advisors of the Plaintiffs and the terms were then
mutually settled. The Defendants also submit that a memorandum of family
settlement does not require registration.
CS(OS) No. 2203/2006 2 of 5
4. An interim application no. 13252/2006 was also filed by the Plaintiffs
under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 on 27.11.2006 for an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction against the Defendants with regard to the suit property. This
Court vide order dated 18.04.2007 directed both parties to maintain status
quo of the title and possession in the properties mentioned in the Schedule to
the document dated 04.04.2006.
5. The plaintiffs filed an interim application no. 5393/2007 for
correction/modification of the abovesaid order dated 18.04.2007 and this
Court modified the said order vide order dated 23.05.2007 by adding the
following,
"It is further directed that the Defendant No. 1 shall not encumber
the suit property bearing no. W-105 Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi
110048."
6. Vide order dated 17.03.2008, this Court allowed I.A No. 12127/2007
filed by the Defendants for letting out their respective properties by allowing
the parties to lease/rent out their properties with the exception of the suit
property.
7. The Plaintiffs contend in the present application that the Defendants
have already sold three out of their six properties even before order dated
18.04.2007 was passed and hence they do not suffer from the said order but
the Plaintiffs on the other hand, are suffering irreparable loss due to the said
direction to maintain status quo of the title and possession in the properties
contained in the Schedule to the document dated 04.04.2006. The Plaintiffs
also contend that their claim in the suit is only with regard to the suit
CS(OS) No. 2203/2006 3 of 5
property and is not extended to any of the other properties contained in the
Schedule to the document dated 04.04.2006.
8. The Plaintiffs pray for variation of the order dated 18.04.2007 as
amended on 23.05.2007 to the extent that the parties may be allowed to deal
with their respective properties in the manner of their choice and also for the
vacation of the direction to maintain status quo of the title and possession of
the said properties except the suit property.
9. The Defendants in their reply to the present application have
submitted that it is for the Plaintiffs to decide as to how to deal with their
properties and they have no objection to the same. However, they submit
that the same manner should be allowed to them to deal with their portion of
properties and equal treatment be meted out with respect to all the properties
in the Schedule to the document dated 04.04.2006.
10. After reading the plaintiffs‟ present application and the defendants‟
reply as well as other pertinent documents, it is clear that the defendants
have no objection if the plaintiffs are allowed to deal with their part of the
properties in any manner of their choice.
11. With regard to the treatment towards all properties being the same, it
is noted that the treatment towards all the properties contained in the
Schedule to document dated 04.04.2006 is in fact the same, with the
exception of the suit property, with regard to which Defendant No. 1 has
been allowed to carry on construction subject to the condition that in case
this Court ultimately rules against him, he shall not be entitled to claim any
equity in respect of the same.
CS(OS) No. 2203/2006 4 of 5
12. In view of the facts stated in the preceding paras, the order dated 18th
April, 2007 maintaining the status quo of the title and possession of the suit
property is modified except the suit property i.e. W 105 Greater Kailash,
Part-II, New Delhi-110048 and the parties are allowed to deal with the
properties mentioned in the schedule to the documents dated 4 th April, 2006
in the manner they like. The application filed by the plaintiff is allowed
accordingly.
No costs.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JULY 06, 2009
sd
CS(OS) No. 2203/2006 5 of 5
