Delhi High Court
Ram Lubhai vs Sanjay Bhasin & Ors on 8 July, 2015
$~33.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 276/2010
RAM LUBHAI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. T.K. Tiwari and Mr. Abhay Kumar
Verma, Advocates with plaintiff in person.
versus
SANJAY BHASIN & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. Swati Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the defendants
with D-1(a), 2, 3(f), 4, 5(a) to (c), 6 and
Mr. Atul Chadha for D-7 in person.
Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay
Wadhwa with Mr. Sanjay Wadhwa in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 08.07.2015
I.A. 13387/2015 (by the plaintiff u/O I R 10 CPC for addition of
necessary parties)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating
inter alia that he has filed the accompanying suit for partition against
the defendants in respect of an immovable property owned by late
Shri Bhagat Ram, predecessor-in-title of the parties.
2. At the time of instituting the present suit, the plaintiff had
arrayed Shri Sanjay Bhasin (grandson of late Shri Bhagat Ram) as
defendant No.1 stating in the plaint that he was representing the
share of his father, late Shri Ram Dev Bhasin. However, Shri Ram Dev
Bhasin was actually survived by his wife, a son and a daughter, being
class-I heirs and the plaintiff ought to have impleaded all the three
legal heirs of late Shri Ram Dev Bhasin as co-defendants.
3. Now the present application has been filed by the plaintiff to
bring on record the mother and the sister of the defendant No.1 as
defendants No.1(b) and (c).
4. Issue notice.
5. Counsel for the defendants accepts notice and states that she
does not have any objection to the present application being allowed,
particularly, since the parties have arrived at a negotiated settlement
through the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The defendants
No.1(b) and (c) are arrayed as co-defendants alongwith defendant
No.1 (a) in the present suit.
7. The amended memo of parties enclosed with the present
application is taken on record. The Registry is directed to place the
same in part-I file.
I.A. 14089/2011 (by the plaintiff u/O XXII R 4 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating
inter alia that the defendant No.5 had expired on 14.07.2011 and is
survived by three sons and two daughters. The details of the legal
heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 have been set out in para 3 of
the application.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant No.5's
husband had predeceased her. He requests that the five legal heirs
may be permitted to step into her shoes.
3. Notice was issued on the present application on 06.09.2011.
However, the defendants have not filed a reply in opposition to the
present application. Counsel for the defendants states that she does
not have any objection to the legal heirs of the defendant No.5 being
brought on record and she has already filed her power of attorney on
behalf of the said legal heirs.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the amended memo of
parties annexed with I.A. 13387/2015 mentions the name of the five
legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5.
5. Accordingly, the present application is allowed, subject to just
exceptions. The legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.5 as detailed
in the prayer clause are permitted to be brought on record.
6. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 276/2010
1. On the last date of hearing, counsels for the parties had stated
that they have arrived at a settlement with one Mr. Sanjeev Wadhwa,
a builder, who had agreed to purchase the plaintiff's and the
defendants' undivided shares in the suit premises, except for Mr.
Sanjay Bhasin, defendant No.1 [described as defendant No.1(a) in the
amended memo of parties]. It was further agreed by the parties that
Mr. Sanjay Bhasin would be entitled to possession of the ground floor,
after the building is reconstructed by the builder.
2. Vide order dated 07.02.2014, a preliminary decree was passed
declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners to the
extent of 1/8th share each in the suit property bearing No.38/5,
Punjabi Bagh (East), New Delhi, measuring 280 sq. yards. Thereafter,
a Local Commissioner was appointed to submit a report as to whether
the suit property could be partitioned by metes and bounds. In the
meantime, the parties had approached the Court for being referred to
mediation, which has resulted in a settlement being arrived at and
recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 29.05.2015.
3. Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants jointly state that
they had approached the builder, who has expressed his readiness and
willingness to purchase the shares of all the parties except for the
share of defendant No.1(a), (b) and (c), for a total sale consideration
of Rs.4,62,00,000/-. It has been agreed by the parties that the
builder/his nominee shall pay a sum of Rs.72 lacs to the plaintiff for
her 1/8th undivided share in the suit property. Out of the said amount
of Rs.72 lacs, a sum of Rs.35 lacs has already been received by the
plaintiff. It has been agreed that the balance sale consideration of
Rs.37 lacs shall be paid by the Builder to the plaintiff at the time of
execution of the sale deed.
4. Counsels for the parties and the Builder state that the Builder/
his nominee has agreed to pay liquidated amounts to all the
defendants except for the defendant No.1(a), (b) and (c), who would
be entitled to receive possession of the ground floor of the suit
property, after the same is reconstructed.
5. A sum of Rs.65 lacs each shall be paid to the defendant No.2,
defendant No.3(a) to (f) collectively, defendant No.4, defendant
No.5(a) to (c) collectively, defendants No.6 and 7 at the time of
execution of the sale deed in favour of the Builder / or his nominee, in
terms of the settlement arrived at and recorded in the Settlement
Agreement.
6. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel for Mr. Wadhwa confirms the
fact that his client is a signatory to the aforecited Settlement
Agreement dated 29.05.2015. Similarly, the plaintiff and all the
defendants are also signatories to the Settlement Agreement. Some of
the parties are present in Court and their presence has been duly
recorded.
7. Counsel for the parties jointly states that that they do not have
any objection to the Settlement Agreement being taken on record and
the suit being decreed in terms thereof.
8. The Court has perused the Settlement Agreement dated
29.5.2015. The same has been signed by all the parties including the
Builder and their respective counsels as also the learned Mediator. The
terms and conditions of the settlement have been recorded in paras 1
to 15 of the Settlement Agreement.
9. As the counsels for the parties to the suit and counsel for the
Builder jointly state that their clients have arrived at the aforesaid
settlement 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. All the parties to the
Settlement Agreement shall remain bound by the terms and conditions
thereof. Counsel for Mr. Wadhwa, the Builder states that his client
shall abide by the terms and conditions of the Settlement and
discharge all the obligations cast upon him thereunder.
10. The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of the settlement
arrived at and recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated
29.05.2015, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
11. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
12. File be consigned to the record room.
13. The date fixed, i.e., 08.09.2015 stands cancelled.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JULY 08, 2015
rkb/ap
