Gurmeet Kaur Bakashi vs Ravinder Singh Choudhary & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 993 Del

$~28.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1705/2013
      GURMEET KAUR BAKASHI                     ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Ms. Vandana Bhatia, Advocate with
                    plaintiff in person.

                        versus

      RAVINDER SINGH CHOUDHARY & ORS              ..... Defendants
                    Through: Mr. Purushendra Bhardwaj, Advocate
                    for D-1 and D-2 with D-1 and D-2 in person.
                    Defendant No.3 in person.
                    Mr. Ajay Laroia, Advocate for D-4 to D-6 with
                    D-5 in person.
                    Mr. Balbir Singh Nayyar, Advocate for D-7 to
                    D-9 with D-7 in person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                        ORDER

% 03.02.2015

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against her

three brothers (defendants No.1 to 3) and the legal heirs of her two

deceased brothers (defendants No.4 to 6 and defendants No.7 and 9),

praying inter alia for passing a decree of partition in respect of

property bearing No.4C/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, owned by

Shri Jaswant Singh, father of the parties, and holding that the parties

are entitled to 1/6th share each in the said property.

2. During the pendency of the present proceedings, at the joint

request of the counsels for the parties, they were referred to the Delhi

High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for arriving at a

negotiated settlement. Pursuant thereto, a Settlement Agreement

dated 02.02.2015 has been placed on record. The terms and

conditions of the settlement have been reduced into writing in para 7

of the Settlement Agreement, whereunder, the parties had agreed that

the suit property would be sold outright to a third party for a total sale

consideration of `1,32,00,000/- and the sale proceeds would be

divided amongst the parties to the extent of 1/6th share each therein.

The settlement records that the defendants No.4 and 6 have already

relinquished their respective shares in favour of the defendant No.5.

3. Counsels for the parties state that the sale deed in respect of the

suit premises was executed jointly by the parties in favour of the third

party on 13.01.2015 and the sale proceeds received by them have

been divided equally amongst them to the extent of their respective

shares. A copy of the registered Sale Deed has been enclosed with the

Settlement Agreement. Counsels for the parties state that in view of

the Settlement Agreement, nothing further is due or payable by any of

the parties to each other and as their inter se disputes have been

amicably settled, the suit may be decreed in terms of the said

settlement.

4. The Court has perused the Settlement Agreement dated

02.02.2015. The same has been signed by the plaintiff and the

defendants No.1 to 3, the defendant No.5 for self and on behalf of the

defendants No.4 and 6 and the defendant No.7 for self and on behalf

of the defendants No.8 and 9. The same has also signed by the

respective counsels and the learned Mediator.

5. As the counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants jointly state

that they have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free

will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any

quarters and they have sold the suit premises and shared the sale

proceeds thereof with each other to the extent of their respective

shares and nothing further is due or payable by any of the parties to

the other, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the

Settlement Agreement.

6. The Settlement Agreement dated 02.02.2015 is taken on record.

The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the

settlement arrived at between them.

The suit is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view

of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement through the

court annexed mediation prior to the stage of framing of issues, the

plaintiff is entitled to claim refund of 50% of the court fees in terms of

Section 16-A of the Court Fees Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the

plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the

plaintiff for refund of 50% of the court fees, as per law.

9. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 03, 2015 rkb