Kanwal Nain Maniktahla vs Om Prakash Arora And Others F+
2015 Latest Caselaw 3293 Del

$~4.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 2458/2009
       KANWAL NAIN MANIKTAHLA                    ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Advocate
                     with plaintiff in person.

                        versus


       OM PRAKASH ARORA AND OTHERS F+              ..... Defendants
                     Through: Mr. Tarun Diwan, Advocate with
                     Ms. Kirti K. Mehta, Advocate for D-1 and D-2
                     with D-1 and D-2 in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 23.04.2015

1. On the last date of hearing, counsels for the parties had sought

further time to report settlement on the ground that the plaintiff, who

ordinarily lives abroad, was in Delhi in that duration and the parties

were trying to negotiate a settlement directly with each other.

2. Today, learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1

and 2 state that they have filed a copy of the Settlement Agreement

dated 14.04.2015, wherein they have agreed that as the suit premises

cannot be divided by metes and bounds, the only other option is to

dispose of the same in the market and divide the sale proceeds to the

extent of 1/3rd share each.

3. Counsels for the parties state that paras 2 and 3 of the

Settlement Agreement refers to the disputes, subject matter of

CS(OS) 2303/2010, a suit instituted by one Shri Devenderjeet Singh

Sethi against the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 praying inter

alia for specific performance in respect of a contract for sale of the suit

premises. The parties have expressed their willingness to jointly sell

the suit property to the aforesaid person, if a settlement can be

arrived at with him. All the parties state that without going into the

aspect of sale of the suit property to the third party mentioned above,

they are agreeable if the preliminary decree dated 06.09.2013 is

converted into a final decree and the parties are left to resolve the

manner in which they propose to sell the suit property as they are ad

idem that it cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. They further

submit that if for any reason, the parties are not in a position to jointly

arrive at an agreed figure for disposing of the suit property or unable

to identify a prospective purchaser, then they shall resort to execution

proceedings.

4. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that

the preliminary decree dated 06.09.2013 shall be treated as a final

decree by holding that the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 are

entitled to 1/3rd undivided share each in the suit premises. It is also

recorded that the parties agree that the suit premises cannot be

partitioned by metes and bounds and it shall have to be disposed

jointly at the best price that it can fetch in the market and the sale

proceeds shall be divided between them in three equal shares. If the

parties do not co-operate with each other for disposing of the suit

premises, they would be entitled to seek execution of the decree, as

per law.

5. The suit is decreed on the above lines, while leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.

HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 23, 2015 rkb