Shri Narender Yadav vs Chaudhary Kishan Chand & Sons And ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6199 Del

$~ 2
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CS(OS) 1965/2006 & I.A. 2842/2009, I.A. 4965/2014
         & I.A. 22149/2014

%                                        Date of decision :26th November, 2014
         SHRI NARENDER YADAV                        ..... Plaintiff
                  Through: Mr.Amarjeet Yadav, Advocate
                  Legal heirs of plaintiff, in person.

                            versus

         CHAUDHARY KISHAN CHAND & SONS AND ORS...... Defendant
                Through: Mr.Pradeep K. Bakshi, Adv. for Ds=1 & 2
                Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for defendants 4 & 5
                Defendant no.3, in person.

         CORAM:
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (Oral)

IA.No.23458/2014

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition, rendition of accounts, declaration and injunction against the defendants.

2. Parties have filed the present application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording the terms of settlement. All the parties including legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs are present in court today. They are identified by their respective counsel. Defendant no.3 (Surinder Yadav) is present in person in court today.

3. Counsel for the parties and the parties submit that they have entered into an amicable settlement. In addition to the two applications I.A. 2842/2009 & I.A. 22149/2014 both under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, another application being I.A.No.23458/2014 has been filed under Order 23 Rule

3 CPC. It is jointly agreed that the I.A. 2842/2009 may be allowed.

4. It is also pointed out that after signing of I.A. 2842/2009 the defendant no.6 had a second thought and subsequently his rights as mentioned in deed of settlement dated 15.2.2009 were taken over by defendant no.2. Accordingly, I.A. 2842/2009 is allowed and the I.A. 22149/2014 is dismissed as not pressed.

5. Counsel for the parties pray that the present suit be decreed in terms of the prayer made in IA.No.23458/2014, which is marked as Ex.C.-1. Ex.C-1 has been signed by the plaintiff no.1(a), (b) and (c) and by defendant no.2 for self and as Karta of defendant no.1 and Surinder Yadav, defendant no.3 (wrongly typed as defendant no.4), defendant no.4 (wrongly typed as defendant no.5), defendant 5 (wrongly typed as defendant no.6) and defendant no.6 (wrongly typed as defendant no.7). The application, Ex. C-1 is supported by the affidavits of plaintiff no.1(a), (b) and (c), defendant no.2 for self and as Karta of defendant no.1, defendant no.3, defendant no.4, defendant 5 and defendant no.6.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The suit [CS(OS) 1965/2006] is decreed in terms of the prayer made in IA.No.23458/2014, which is marked as Ex.C.-1. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.

7. It is pointed out by Mr.Bakshi, counsel for defendants no.1 and 2 that although the deed of settlement was impounded by an order of this court dated 12.8.2010, in fact the deed of settlement does not require payment of stamp duty in view of the decision rendered by this court in the case of Vimla Monga Vs. Ramlubhai reported at 209 (2014) DLT 443.

8. It would be open for the parties to bring to the notice of the authority(ies) the law laid down in the case of Vimla Monga Vs. Ramlubhai reported at 209 (2014) DLT 443.

I.A. 4965/2014

9. In view of the order passed in IA.No.23458/2014, no further orders are required to be passed in the present application.

G.S.SISTANI, J NOVEMBER 26, 2014 ssn