Delhi High Court
Ramanjit Grover And Another vs Inderpreet Singh And Another on 4 February, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~19.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2995/2012 and I.A. 18111/2012, 2182/2014
RAMANJIT GROVER AND ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Vijay Tandon, Advocate
versus
INDERPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for D-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 04.02.2015
1. Two plaintiffs, who are sisters of the defendant No.2, have
instituted the present suit praying inter alia for a decree of permanent
injunction for restraining the defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit
premises bearing No.F-27, Green Park (Main), New Delhi. Further, the
plaintiffs have sought a decree of declaration against the defendants,
declaring the Agreement to Sell dated 20.10.2009 executed by the
defendants No.1 and 2 as void ab initio and unenforceable. Apart from
the above reliefs, the plaintiffs have also sought a decree of
permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
2. Mr. Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for the defendant No.2
states that certain events that have occurred during the pendency of
the present suit need to be brought to the notice of the Court, which
are to the effect that the defendant No.1, a party to the Agreement to
Sell dated 20.10.2009, had sold his interests in the said contract in
favour of one Shri Sanjay Goel, by way of a Deed of Assignment. The
said Sanjay Goel had instituted a suit for specific performance against
the defendant No.2, registered as CS(OS) 1808/2011. He submits that
at the request of the parties to the aforecited suit, they were referred
by the court to mediation and a Settlement Agreement dated
29.05.2014 was executed between the parties, whereunder the
defendant No.2 herein had agreed to pay a sum of `51 lacs to Shri
Sanjay Goel to settle the dispute in respect of the suit premises. It is
stated by learned counsel that the said amount has already been paid
to the plaintiff in CS(OS) 1808/2011 and the said suit was disposed of
as compromised in terms of the order dated 30.09.2014. Copies of the
Settlement Agreement dated 29.05.2014 and the order dated
30.09.2014 passed in CS(OS) 1808/2011 are handed over by the
counsel for the defendant No.2 and taken on record.
3. Counsel for the defendant No.2 states that now there is no other
pending litigation in respect of the suit premises. The present status
of the suit premises is that the defendant No.2 is in possession of the
first floor and the plaintiffs are in possession of the ground floor and
the second floor of the suit premises and as per the will dated
22.03.1998, executed by Mrs.Ravinder Mumick, who expired on
1.2.2000(mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2), the parties
are entitled to one floor each in the suit premises. In terms of the said
will, Mrs. Ravinder Mumick, had desired that in case any of her
children would wish to dispose of their respective shares in the suit
premises, they would give the first option to the other siblings to
purchase their share.
4. Counsels for the parties jointly state that they will abide by the
last wishes of their mother and agree that in case any of the siblings
propose to sell their share in the suit premises, in terms of the
bequest, they shall give the first option to the other siblings to
purchase the said share at the going market price.
5. Counsels for the parties state that their clients shall remain
bound by the said statement and they shall file affidavits on the
aforesaid lines within two weeks, while exchanging copies with each
other. Both parties state that the suit may be disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid settlement.
6. Ordered accordingly. The suit is disposed of alongwith the
pending application, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. In case either of the parties fails to file the affidavits as directed
above, the other party shall be entitled to approach the Court for
appropriate orders.
HIMA KOHLI, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
rkb
