Delhi High Court
Ms. Preeti Arora vs Mrs. Nita Lal & Anr. on 7 April, 2010
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.2667/2000
Date of Decision : 07.04.2010
Ms. Preeti Arora ......Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Zeba Tarannum
Khan, Advocate.
Versus
Mrs. Nita Lal & Anr. ...... Defendants
Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta,
Advocate.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
IA No.2727/20006
1. This order shall dispose of an application bearing no.
2727/2006. By virtue of which the plaintiff has prayed that the
he may not be directed to furnish the valuation report and the
stamp papers in order to draw the decree as has been directed
by the Registry.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a
suit for partition in respect of the suit property bearing no. A-30,
Nizamuddin West, New Delhi consisting of three floors, namely,
ground floor, first floor and barsati floor. It was alleged in the
suit that the property was an H.U.F. property of Late Shri Nand
Lal (the father of the plaintiff and the defendants) and Shri
CS(OS) No.2667/2000 Page 1 of 5
Deepak Kumar Lal/defendant no. 2 the brother of the plaintiff.
It was alleged that on 01.04.1975 Late Shri Nand Lal and Shri
Deepak Kumar Lal had effected the partition of the suit property
by virtue of which Late Shri Nand Lal became the sole owner of
the first floor and barsati floor along with the first floor servant
quarters and first floor motor garages in the said building. So
far as the ground floor and the servant quarter and the motor
garage situated on the ground floor are concerned, it is stated to
have fallen to the share of the defendant no. 2. It is alleged that
Late Shri Nand Lal died on 01.02.1984 and before his death
Nand Lal had executed the WILL dated 22.08.1981 on the basis
of which he had bequeathed the first floor and barsati set along
with first floor servant quarters and first floor motor garage in
property bearing no. A-30, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi and the
defendant no. 1 in equal share.
3. The plaintiff is stated to have married and settled in America. It
is alleged by her, since the partition of the suit property by
metes and bounds has not been effected by the parties,
accordingly she has filed the present suit.
4. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and
contested the claim of the plaintiff.
5. During the pendency of the suit the parties have arrived at a
settlement and accordingly filed an application under Order
XXIII Rule 3 CPC for passing the decree in terms of the said
settlement.
6. The application bearing no. 2919/2005 which was exhibited as
C/1 as a memorandum of settlement and decree in terms of the
said settlement was passed on 13.04.2005. On 07.03.2006 the
CS(OS) No.2667/2000 Page 2 of 5
plaintiff filed a fresh application bearing no. 2727/2006. By
virtue of which the exemption from filing the valuation report of
the suit property and the stamp papers was sought on the
ground that the Registry had directed the plaintiff to file the
valuation report and the requisite stamp papers to enable it to
draw the decree on the stamp papers.
7. The Court appointed Mr. Rajeev Endlaw (Advocate) (as His
Lordship then was) the learned Amicus Curiae to assist the
Court in deciding the application. The learned Amicus had cited
the number of judgments including one relied upon by the
plaintiff in case titled Rajinder Kumar Vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors
2003 V AD (DELHI) 469 wherein it was observed that the
question of as to whether a decree is to be drawn on a stamp
paper as per the valuation report of the property would depend
on the nature of decree which is sought by the plaintiff. The
learned Amicus submitted that if it was merely a declaratory
decree which recognizes oral family settlement arrived at
between the parties and subsequently reduced into writing, it
would not require to be stamped. However, if the decree itself
divides the property by metes and bounds and is not executable
as such the decree would have to be drawn on a stamp paper.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff on observing this legal
position had sought some time to obtain instructions from the
plaintiff in this regard and since then more than 3 ½ years have
elapsed yet no decision has been intimated by the counsel.
Repeatedly for one reason or the other adjournments have been
obtained.
CS(OS) No.2667/2000 Page 3 of 5
8. In the light of the aforesaid factual matrix, the only question
which requires to be considered is twofold as to whether the
settlement which is arrived at between the parties on the basis
of which the compromise decree was passed was only
recognizing an oral settlement arrived at between the parties or
the document of settlement itself was creating the right, title or
interest warranting the submission of stamp papers so as to
draw the decree on the said basis.
9. Needless to say that a perusal of the order sheet shows complete
negligence on the part of the plaintiff in getting this short issue
decided. Even today a request for an adjournment is made on
behalf of the learned counsel of for the plaintiff on the ground
that he may be given some time to obtain the instructions as to
whether the valuation report be submitted or not. The request
was disallowed keeping in view the fact that 3 ½ years have gone
by and yet the plaintiff has not been able to make up its mind.
10. A reading of the contents of the application as well as the
settlement which is the basis of application, under Order XXIII
Rule 3 CPC shows that it was not an oral settlement which was
reduced into writing. A perusal of the settlement shows that the
word 'Oral' was used only to avoid the payment of the stamp
duty and the registration charges. The legal position has
already been enunciated in the judgment which has been relied
upon by the learned Amicus. In the instant case, I feel that
since the settlement which has been made the basis of disposal
of the case was not an oral settlement (notwithstanding the fact
that the word oral is used), but it is the settlement itself which is
creating right, title or interest, therefore, I feel that the Registry
CS(OS) No.2667/2000 Page 4 of 5
was justified in asking the plaintiff to submit the valuation
report as well as the stamp papers to enable the Court to draw
the decree on a stamp papers. Accordingly, the application
bearing no. 2727/2006 seeking exemption from filing stamp
papers is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed. The
plaintiff is directed to submit the stamp papers and the
valuation report within a period of three months from today to
enable the Registry to draw the decree. Accordingly, the
application stands dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
April 07, 2010
KP
