Vikram Behl vs Sudhir Behl And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1676 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CS(OS) 1306/2011

                                                        Decided on : 26.02.2015

IN THE MATTER OF:
VIKRAM BEHL                                        ..... Plaintiff
                        Through : Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate with
                        plaintiff in person

                        versus

SUDHIR BEHL AND ORS.                            ..... Defendants
                   Through : Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocate for D-1
                   Mr.Sacchin Puri & Ms.Aastha Lumba, Advocates
                   for D-2
                   Mr.Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate for D-3
                   Mr.Arush Khanna, Advocate for D-4

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

IA No.15108/2014(by the plaintiff u/S 24 r/w S 151 CPC for
transfer of Ex.Pet. No.42/2011) & IA No.17520/2014(by the
plaintiff u/S 51, 94 r/w Order 40 CPC)

1.

Counsel for the plaintiff states that as Execution Petition

No.42/2011 has been filed in the Saket Courts, Delhi, and the Executing

court has already issued orders for partitioning the immovable property,

subject matter of the present suit, he does not wish to press the present

applications.

2. In view of the aforesaid submission, the applications are disposed

of.

IA No.3978/2015(by D-1 u/S 151 CPC)

1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 states that he has filed the

present application in opposition to IA No.9200/2014 and now that the

said application has been dismissed, he does not wish to press the same.

2. Accordingly, the application is disposed of, as not pressed.

IA No.9200/2014(by the plaintiff u/S 151 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff, stating inter

alia that the parties had met for making efforts to try and negotiate a

settlement on 2.4.2014 and counsel for the plaintiff had circulated a

draft Memorandum of Family Settlement for the perusal of all the parties

and for finalization of the compromise terms. A copy of the said draft

Memorandum of Family Settlement has been enclosed by the plaintiff

along with the list of documents filed on 5.5.2014.

2. It has been averred in the application that as the defendants No.1,

2 & 3 did not respond to the draft compromise agreement, the present

application has been filed for seeking directions to the defendants to

place on record their objections, if any, thereto.

3. On a query posed to the counsel for the plaintiff as to whether the

document described as a `compromise agreement' was actually signed

by all the parties, learned counsel concedes that it does not bear their

signatures. In such circumstances, it would be improper to term the

document as a `compromise agreement'.

4. Counsel for the defendant No.3 states as far as his client is

concerned, he does not have any objection to sharing the movable

properties of their deceased mother with the other legal heirs to the

extent of 1/5th share each.

5. Counsel for the defendant No.4 states that his client has already

relinquished his 1/5th share in the movable assets of the deceased

mother, in favour of the plaintiff. The aforesaid statement made on

behalf of the defendant No.4 has already been recorded in para 3 of the

order dated 21.5.2013.

6. Counsels for the defendants No.1 & 2 state that their clients have

not appended their signatures on the document described as a

`compromise deed' and they are not agreeable to the suggestions made

by the plaintiff that they relinquish their 1/5th share each in the movable

assets of their deceased mother, in his favour.

7. The court is not inclined to entertain any objections in respect of

the purported `compromise deed' as it has not attained finality, except

for the defendant No.4, on whose behalf a statement has been made by

the counsel as recorded hereinabove.

8     The present application is disposed of.


CS(OS) 1306/2011

1.    The suit is listed for framing of issues.

2. Counsels for the parties state that the auction of the immovable

property, subject matter of the partial decree passed in the suit, shall

take place on 21.4.2015, in the execution proceedings pending in the

trial court.

3. By now, the controversy in the present case has narrowed down to

the partition of the movable assets left by the deceased mother of the

parties. It has been enquired from the counsels for the parties if they

have identified the movable assets in respect of which the dispute

survives.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states on instructions from her

client that an inventory of the entire movable assets left by the deceased

mother was filed under an index dated 24.3.2014, but now the plaintiff

seeks to confine his claim in the suit to those movable items, that have

been specifically mentioned in the draft Memorandum of Family

Settlement, a copy whereof has been filed under an index dated

5.5.2014.

5. Now the plaintiff proposes to confine his claim in the suit to the

monies, if any, lying in two Bank accounts in the name of the deceased

mother, Lt.Smt.Shakuntla Behl, mentioned at S.No. 1 & 2 of the table

to the Memorandum of Family Settlement, the Capital Gain Bonds issued

by the National Housing Bank mentioned at S.No.3 of the table, the

share certificates, (both demat and physical) mentioned at S.No.4 of the

table along with their details mentioned in Annexure-1 & 2 and the

jewellery/ornaments of the deceased mentioned at S.No.5 of the table

with the details given in Annexure-3.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission, with the consent of the

parties, the claim in the present suit is confined to the aforesaid

articles/valuables. Counsels for the parties jointly state that the maturity

amounts of the Capital Gain Bonds have already been deposited in the

Registry and are lying in an FDR.

7. Coming to the jewellery/ornaments mentioned by the plaintiff at

S.No.5 of the table enclosed with the Draft Memorandum of Family

Settlement, Mr.Puri, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 states that

he has furnished a list of the jewellery items of the deceased, that are in

the possession of his client and they have been set out in paras 7 & 8 of

the written statement.

8. Counsels for the parties state that they accept the said list of

jewellery items as the final list and have no objection if the said

jewellery is sold and the sale proceeds divided to the extent of 1/5th

share each, with the share of the defendant No.4 therein, going to the

plaintiff.

9. As for the details of the shares mentioned in Annexures 1 & 2 to

the table enclosed with the draft Memorandum of Family Settlement, all

the parties are ad idem that they shall be entitled to 1/5th share each

therein or their market value, with the defendant No.4's 1/5th share

going to the plaintiff.

10. Coming to the Capital Gain Bonds, the maturity value whereof has

been deposited in the Registry and is lying in a FDR, all the parties agree

that it be declared that they are entitled to the extent of 1/5th share

each in the maturity amount of the FDRs with 1/5th share of the

defendant No.4 going to the plaintiff.

11. In view of the submissions made by the parties hereinabove, a

final decree is passed, in respect of the movable assets of the deceased

mentioned in paras 5-9 above. It is declared that the plaintiff and the

defendants No.1, 2, 3 & 4 are entitled to 1/5th share each in the maturity

amounts of the Capital Gain Bonds issued by the National Housing Bank,

that are lying in a FDR with the Registry, the share

certificates(physical/demat) detailed in Annexures 1 & 2 enclosed with

the table to the Draft Memorandum of Family Settlement and the

jewellery/ornaments details whereof have been furnished by the

defendant No.2 in paras 7 & 8 of the written statement. Further, as

agreed by the defendant No. 4, his 1/5th share in the aforesaid moveable

articles/valuables shall go to the plaintiff. Order accordingly. The

Registry is directed to draw a decree sheet on the above terms.

12. This leaves the amounts lying in the two bank accounts held by

Lt.Smt.Shakuntla Behl in the State Bank of India, Defence Colony

Branch. It has yet to be ascertained as to the extent of deposits lying in

the said accounts. Issue notice to the Manager of the said Bank directing

him to file a statement of account giving the details of the monies lying

in accounts bearing No. 10617024122 and 10617077720, by way of an

affidavit within two weeks.

13. The plaintiff shall file the process fees within one week for effecting

service on the Manager of State Bank of India, Defence Colony Branch

by speed post, ordinary process, through courier as also DASTI,

returnable on the date fixed. The notice shall indicate that the Manager

of the Bank shall file an affidavit giving the details of the aforesaid

accounts maintained in the name of Lt.Smt.Shakuntla Behl as the first

holder, along with the statement of account.

14. List on 10.4.2015.

                                                 (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 26, 2015                                   JUDGE
mk/rs