Jagbir Singh vs Jai Singh & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 9463 Del

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 453/2012 & IAs No.3526/2012, 6139/2012 and
       6789-91/2015


       JAGBIR SINGH                                       ..... Plaintiff
                         Through : Plaintiff in person.

                         versus

       JAI SINGH & ANR                                ..... Defendants
                         Through : Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate with
                         Mr. Neeraj Mahalwal son of defendant No.1
                         in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                     ORDER

% 18.12.2015 I.A. No.25848/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)

1. The present compromise application has been filed by the

parties stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present

proceedings, they have arrived at an out of court settlement.

2. The details of the terms and conditions of the settlement have

been reduced into writing by virtue of a Memorandum of

Understanding dated 28.11.2015.

3. Counsel for the defendants states that the dispute between the

parties, subject matter of the present case, is in respect of two

immovable properties, namely, House No.115, Madangir Village, New

Delhi measuring 260 sq. meters and House No.90, Madangir Village,

New Delhi measuring 790 sq. meters. However, the parties have

arrived at a settlement not only in respect of the captioned immovable

properties, but also in respect of a land-holding measuring 10 Killas

and 2 bighas situated in village Mesa, Haryana.

4. The manner in which the parties have agreed to deal with the

three immovable properties and divide them amongst themselves, has

been set out in the MOU. Enclosed with the MOU is a site plan of

House No.90, Madangir Village, New Delhi measuring 790 sq. meters,

marked as Annexure-B, which reflects the manner in which the suit

premises has been demarcated amongst the parties.

5. The plaintiff, who appears in person and is identified by the

counsel for the defendants, and the counsel for the defendants jointly

state that the defendant No.2, Smt. Vidya Wati, mother of the parties,

had expired during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff and the

defendant No.1 are her sole legal heirs. They further state that the

MOU has not only been signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1

but also by the two sons of the defendant No.1, who have bound

themselves down to the terms and conditions of the MOU. They

request that the present suit may be decreed in terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties.

6. As the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant jointly

state that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid MOU dated

28.11.2015 of their own free will and volition and without any undue

influence or coercion from any quarters, there appears no legal

impediment in accepting the said settlement. The parties shall remain

bound by the terms and conditions of the family settlement recorded

in the MOU dated 28.11.2015.

7. The application is allowed and the suit is decreed in terms of the

settlement arrived at and recorded in the MOU dated 28.11.2015,

while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be

drawn accordingly.

8. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.

9. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J DECEMBER 18, 2015 sk/ap