Delhi High Court
Kuldip Kaur vs Surinder Kaur & Anr. on 6 November, 2015
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 104/1995
KULDIP KAUR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Malhotra, Adv.
versus
SURINDER KAUR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jagdeep Kaur, Adv. for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 06.11.2015
CM No.26598/2015 (u/O 23 R3 r/w S.151 CPC)
1. This application has been filed in the background of the submission
made before me on the previous date, i.e. 5.10.2015.
2. Counsels for the parties say that the substratum of the settlement
arrived is contained in paragraph 6 of the captioned application. For the
sake of convenience, the same is extracted herein below:
"That in view of the amicable settlement so arrived at
between the parties, the parties jointly sold the said Suit
Property bearing No.MS-93, WZ-445A, Hari Nagar, New
Delhi to Shri Sukesh Chand Jain and Shri Vijender Jain,
both sons of Late Shri Jai Chand Jain and residents of C-
250, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New Delhi, in terms of
Sale Deed dated 05.03.2015 and have also received the
entire sale consideration. The said Sale Deed was duly
registered in the Office Sub-Registrar, Sub-District IIB,
Janakpuri, New Delhi on 10.03.2015 as document
no.3113 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No.454 on
pages no.28 to 42. A true copy of the Sale Deed dated
5.3.2015 in annexed hereto as Annexure A and which
may kindly be read as part and parcel of the Application."
FAO 104/1995 page 1 of 3
2. The application has been signed by both the appellant and respondent
No.1 as well as their advocates.
2.1 I may also note that the application is accompanied by an affidavit of
the appellant and that of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the State,
which is not a party to the settlement arrived at between the appellant and
respondent no.1.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid, counsel for the respondent say that
this appeal may be disposed in view of the settlement arrived at between the
appellant and respondent no.1.
4. To be noted, respondent No.1 had filed a petition under Section 276
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of
property described as property bearing No. MS-93, WZ/445A, M.S. Block,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property), cash,
jewellery and fixed deposit with Punjab National Bank, as detailed out in
Schedule I to the petition (in short the assets), owned by the testator i.e. Late
Mr. S. Sohan Singh.
6. Late Mr. S. Sohan Singh died on 6.12.1980. As per respondent No.1,
Late Mr. S. Sohan Singh had executed a Will dated 2.2.1979 bequeathing
the aforementioned assets to respondent No.1 to the exclusion of his
daughter, i.e. the appellant herein. Respondent No.1 is the second wife of
Late Mr.S. Sohan Singh, while the appellant is his daughter from his first
wife, one, Ms. Gurdayal Kaur.
7. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 10.2.1995, respondent
No.1's petition was allowed and letters of administration were granted in her
favour in respect of the aforementioned assets.
FAO 104/1995 page 2 of 3
8. It is in this context, that the present appeal was filed and subsequently,
as reflected in the captioned application a settlement is reached, based on
sale of aforesaid property (which the counsels say should have been
described as MS 93, WZ/445A, Hari Nagar, Delhi and not as referred to in
the probate petition), and the division of the sale consideration.
9. Having regard to the submissions made before me and the averments
made in the application, I am of the view that the settlement is lawful. The
application is allowed accordingly.
FAO 104/1995
10. In view of the order passed in today CM No.26598/2015, no further
orders are called for in the appeal.
11. The date of hearing fixed at an earlier point in time i.e. 20.11.2015 is,
accordingly, cancelled.
12. The appeal be consigned to records.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2015
s.pal
FAO 104/1995 page 3 of 3
