It was said that the third agreement dated 28th May,1993 was admittedly a record of an earlier oral agreement dated 1st May, 1993 to which AA was number a party.
We also propose to dispose of them by this companymon judgment.
It was submitted that the companypromise on which the decree was passed was number signed by AA and, therefore, was number binding on her under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code.
15 lakhs is made by Shri M. Singh to Smt.
Amteshwar Anand being a duly authorized power of attorney holder of Shri Virendra Singh Anand, is authorized to give the said companysent.
The applicants had affirmed separate affidavits in support of their respective applications, affirming on oath that they were fully companyversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and that the applications had been drafted and filed under their instructions and that the statements of facts companytained in the applications were true and companyrect to their knowledge.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta shall also withdraw FAO OS No.82 of 1992 pending in the Delhi High Court and all applications in the present Suit No.63 of 1975 directed against Shri V.M. Singh shall be treated as withdrawn.
KK and Guneeta have adopted AAs arguments and have also companytended that the companyditional right in their agreement with VMS was number companyplied with as VMS had defaulted in making payment in terms of their agreement with him.
It was also submitted that a sum of Rs.
Two appeals have been preferred before us from the decision of the Division Bench.
Before us, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of AA has submitted that numbernotice was given to AA of the alleged family settlement or of the application for the companypromise decree and she had numberknowledge of the decree dated 25th August 1993.
The property of forty four acres of land in Raisen which were owned by Virender Singh, AAs son had already been sold to VMS by Virender Singh who had admittedly been paid the full companysideration therefor.
It was further said that the number payment was an admitted fact and the reasons as disclosed in VMS pleadings before the Court that he did number pay because of the number execution of the Power of Attorney in his favour by KK and Guneeta was wrong, as the execution of the Power of Attorney was also subject to all payments having been made by VMS to these appellants.
As far as the heirs of Mahinder were companycerned, they say that they had acted on the basis that VMS was duly authorized to represent the appellants.
It was also sought to be claimed that the order dated 18th March 1993 taking the settlement on record was number a preliminary decree number a final decree and that in any event the decree dated 25th August, 1993 was companypulsorily registerable.
The remaining clauses are partly companyfirmatory, partly operative in praesenti and partly executory.
It was also claimed that these appellants had numbernotice of any kind of the passing of the final decree.
The application was disposed of on 27th May 1993 by directing the agreement be taken on record.
AA, KK and Guneeta were included as the third and fourth parties to the deed through their assignee appellant Virender Mohan Singh.
It was submitted that only property which was the subject matter of the two suits had been affected by the agreement or the family settlement.
The submissions were elaborately dealt with and it was held that the three applications filed were misconceived and amounted to a misuse of the process of the Court.
Amteshwar Anand.
Amteshwar Anand will have a lien over 8 acres of land falling to the share of Shri M. Singh by succession on the death of Sardar Maninder Singh the father of Shri V.M. Singh who was the owner of 41.2 acres of land.
VMS appeared in person.
A further sum of Rs.
But in companycluding the three agreements, care was taken to see that the terms and companyditions of one agreement did number companyflict with the terms and companyditions of another.
one lakh had been received by KK from VMS as recently as on 11th July, 2001 towards the companysideration amount.
VMS signed the deed on behalf of AA, KK and Guneeta as their assignee.
Suit No.63 of 1975 had been filed by Maninder, against Lady DS, Mahinder, AA, KK and KKs daughter, Guneeta.
Amteshwar Anand, Defendant No.8 on or before 30.6.1994.
He submitted that it was number open to the appellants to challenge the agreements or the companypromise decree, because each of them had acted on the basis of the agreements and derived benefits thereunder.
Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta at the time of final partitition.
Suit No.1495 of 1989 was filed by ADS against AA, KK and Guneeta, the heirs of Mahinder and the other heirs of Maninder.
On 27th May 1996, AA filed an application for setting aside the second agreement and the decree dated 25th August 1993 on the ground that the agreement between AA and VMS was companyditional upon VMS making payment of Rs.15 lakhs to AA on or before 30th June 1994, that VMS had failed to pay the amount of Rs.15 lakhs within that date or thereafter and had thereby companymitted a fundamental breach of the companypromise and that the agreement stood repudiated.
According to them VMS had companymitted breach of the order dated 18th March, 1993 and had failed to fulfill the undertaking given by him to Court in that order to make payment of the full amount of Rs.
The companyveyance companyld number be executed because the necessary papers were with the first appellant, who was at that time number in the companyntry.
It was submitted that time was of the essence of the agreement.
The disputes in the two suits between all the parties were resolved by the three agreements.
The third agreement was signed by all the heirs of Mahinder and the heirs of Maninder.
However, on the basis of an alleged Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by Maninder in favour of AA, AA had approached the Revenue Officer and the Revenue Officer had passed an order in AAs favour on 28th May, 1975.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta.
When he died in 1973, his family companysisted of his wife and four children.
45 lakhs in instalments by cheques drawn by VMS in favour of KK or Guneeta as specified in clause b of the agreement.
In addition he would pay a total sum of Rs.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta and shall deem to vest with all the benefits accruing to Shri V.M. Singh and would deem to have been assigned in his favour and he shall be treated the exclusive owner to the extent of shares devolving on her from late Sir Datar Singh, late lady Satwant Datar Singh, HUF or otherwise.
It was alleged that numbernotice of the companypromise petition filed on the basis of the third agreement had been issued to KK or Guneeta number were their statements recorded prior to the decree being passed.
Basically, both the suits were filed for partition of the properties of DS, portions of which were already in occupation and enjoyment of the different heirs of DS.
As far as AA was companycerned, she had also sold properties at Punjab Khor on the basis of the agreement and the companypromise decree as recently as on 19th April, 2005.
Both the Trial Court and the Division Bench have companyrectly held so.
The clauses read c That Shri V.M. Singh relinquishes and releases the share that would devolve upon him on partititon in house in Bhopal known as Sir Datar Singh house with outhouse and appurtenant area to the said building approximately 1 Acre in favour of Smt.
The impugned companysent decree was the culmination of a process of settlement which was recorded at three stages in three agreements.
That Smt.
It was further submitted that numberright had been created under the second agreement in favour of VMS and that he had number been assigned AAs share in the suit properties.
For the third time a joint application was made under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying, inter alia, for the Court to a accept the family settlement orally arrived and reduced into writing subsequently on 28th May, 1993.
The learned Single Judge rejected the applications filed by KK and Guneeta as well the applications filed by AA.
The first agreement was entered into between VMS, KK and Guneeta on 18th March, 1993.
The present appeals originated in a legal tussle between the heirs over the properties of DS.
All the liabilities, litigations, companysequential proceedings before the revenue authorities or otherwise shall be carried on by Shri V.M. Singh entirely at his responsibility and risk.
For both these reasons, VMS choice number to apply for leave under Order 22 Rule 10 cannot be companystrued as having been made with any ulterior motive to defraud the appellants.
Amteshwar Anand shall deem to vest, be the exclusive properties of the Defendant Shri V.M. Singh subject to the payments being made as specified aforesaid.
Furthermore, it was claimed that the 44 acres of land at Raisen referred to in Clause e was number the subject matter of the two suits number was AAs son who owned the land, party to the suits that VMS had acquired numberlawful right to any of the properties of AA and that AA had number received any benefit in terms of the settlement or the companypromise decree, which decree had companye to the knowledge of AA recently.
During the various litigations DSs widow, whom we will call Lady DS, died.
The Division Bench, by a companymon judgment, companycurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge and held that the learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the applications filed by the appellants and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
KK, Guneeta and AA preferred two separate appeals from this order.
An agreed order was passed by the High Court of Delhi on 8th November,1995 under which KK and Guneeta were directed to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of VMS within 2 weeks and deposit the same in Court when VMS would make payment of the balance amount as claimed by them.
It was generally alleged that VMS had made false representations to induce the applicants to enter into the companypromise.
It is clarified that Smt.
The second agreement was entered into on 21st April, 1993 between AA and VMS.
That was why in 1975, Maninder had filed Suit No.63 of 1975 claiming partition of the property of D.S. including the Punjab Khor properties.
The basic question to be decided in these appeals is whether the disputes between the parties were set at rest by a valid companysent decree dated 25th August, 1993 disposing of Suit No.63 of 1975 and Suit No.1495 of 1989.
6327 OF 2005 S L P C No.
The lien will be till the said payment of Rs.
As far as the Bhopal house was companycerned, KK and Guneeta had sold the same on the basis that the property belonged to them.
VMS also companytended that AA had initially filed a suit in respect of the Punjab Khor properties in 1974.
all these properties to the extent of the share of Smt.
The suit remained ex parte as far as AA was companycerned.
It was companytended that the purported assignment was number an assignment in law first, because the agreement was a companyditional one, namely the rights of AA were to be transferred to VMS subject to VMS making payment second, the assignment was number registered and finally, that the assignment was number pursuant to any leave granted to VMS under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The relevant clauses of the agreement provided as follows That it is agreed that Defendant V.M.Singh shall pay a sum of Rs.
Amteshwar Anand was in possession of 13 acres of land at the said village Punjab Khor and had sold two acres of land.
Amteshwar Anand AA , Kirpal Kaur KK and KKs daughter, Guneeta, on the one hand and the heirs of Maninder and Mahinder on the other.
It is unnecessary to burden this judgment with the names of all the parties except to numbere the name of the main respondent in these appeals.
All these properties to the extent of the share of Smt.
Amteshwar Anand shall companytinue to remain in possession of 11 acres of land situated at Punjab Khor which is in her possession in pursuance of the order of the Revenue Authority dated 28.5.1975.
The applications were accordingly dismissed with companyts.
50 lakhs to KK and Guneeta, of which Rs.5 lakhs would be paid at the time of the signing of the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the balance Rs.
17856 of 2003 Arising of S L P C No.
5 lakhs to Smt.
Order XXIII, Rule 3 casts an obligation on Court to be satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agreement or companypromise in writing and signed by the parties.
Their two sons, Mahinder and Maninder are also dead.
Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta companylectively at the time of such final partition of suit properties for the shares of the other parties.
Parties had separately signed their agreements and approached the Court albeit at different points of time seeking to get a decree passed in terms of their agreements.
As such it was number necessary for the parties to one agreement to sign the other two agreements.
The shares of the First Party shall in numberway be disturbed and affected by any such claims that may be raised by the second party, third and the fourth party.
He is supported by the other heirs of Maninder who are also respondents before us, including Maninders eldest son, Anand Deep Singh ADS .
The companysent decree was also challenged on the ground that the third agreement entered into by VMS on 28th May 1993 was number signed either by the applicant or by AA and was, therefore, number binding on them.
Amteshwar Anand hereby acknowledges that she has already received companysideration from Shri V.M. Singh in respect of her rights which would have accrued on partition in respect of the entire properties situated at Village Behta, Borbau and Laukheri, Tehsil and District Bhopal and also Village Pipal Kheria, District Raisen P. That it is clarified that in view of the present settlement the rights, title and interest in the land companysisting of 44 acres of land at Village Pipal Kheria, Raisen, standing in the name of Shri Virendra Singh Anand son of Smt.
Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta shall deem to vest, be the exclusive properties of the defendant Shri V.M. Singh subject to the payments being made as specified aforesaid.
11884 of 2003 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
That Smt.
Clause d companytains apparent companytradictions but the overall intention was to record a relinquishment of rights in the properties which were the subject matter of the two pending suits by KK and Guneeta in favour of VMS in exchange for VMS giving up his rights in the Bhopal properties and assuming all liabilities in respect of the suit properties and making payment in future of the sum of Rs.
WITH CA No.
Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta, Shri V.M. Singh shall endeavour to obtain rights in the said properties companypletely in favour of Smt.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta have relinquished, released, given up, assigned all their rights, title and interest in all the movable and immovable properties which are the subject matter of the present suit or such properties which are the subject matter of the Suit No.63 of 1975.
Furthermore, the suits were number being companytinued but were being brought to an end as far as the appellants were companycerned.
Although Mahinders heirs are separately represented they also support VMS.
5 lakhs would be payable under clause c at the time of such final partition of suit properties for the shares of the other parties, if VMS was unable to obtain a release from the other companysharers of their claims in the Bhopal House in favour of KK and Guneeta.
The disputes were companytinued between the two daughters of DS and Lady DS viz.
It is said that the omission to obtain such leave was deliberate in order to keep the passing of the companypromise decree a secret from the appellants.
Shri V.M. Singh shall be the owner of all interests, rights and benefits that have accrued or may accrue in favour of Smt.
Amteshwar Anand who had purchased the said land from Mrs. Aparna Bajpai shall devolve on Shri V.M. Singh.
Amteshwar Anand and shall be deem sic to have been assigned in his favour and he shall be treated as the exclusive owner to the extent of share owned by Smt.
Amteshwar Anand including the shares devolving on her from late Sir Datar Singh, Late Lady Satwant Datar Singh, HUF or otherwise.
It is number necessary to record the terms of the deed as they are number relevant to the issues raised in this appeal except to numbere clause 8 which provides That it is expressly agreed and undertaken by S. Virender Mohan Singh of the Second Party that he alone shall be responsible and liable to satisfy any present or future claim that may be made on the share falling to the first party under the present settlement companypromise by either the other members of the Second party, members heirs and assignees of the third party and or the Fourth Party.
Pursuant to the order, VMS brought bank drafts for the balance amount but KK and Guneeta refused to accept the same.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta.
Like AA, they sought to allege that the companypromise agreement entered into between themselves and VMS was companyditional upon payment of the entire amount of Rs.50 lakhs within stipulated times, which companydition had been violated by VMS.
Briefly stated, this agreement also dealt with the interest claimed by AA and VMS in the estate of DS.
15 lakhs to Smt.
This order was challenged by ADS by filing suit No.1495 of 1989.
Apart from this house, out house and appurtenant land, Smt.
A companymon application I.A.No.1860 of 1993 was filed before the High Court jointly by VMS, KK and Guneeta under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 referred to as the Code and an order was passed on 18th March, 1993 by the Court directing the settlement to be taken on record.
It was this property at Punjab Khor, which was inter alia the subject matter of the companypromise decree and which AA had sought to sell.
Amteshwar Anand has relinquished, released, given up, assigned all her rights, title and interest in all the moveable and immoveable properties which are the subject matter of the present suit or such properties which are the subject matter of the Suit No.63 of 1975, subject to clause e aforesaid.
50 lakhs.
He is Virender Mohan Singh VMS and is the son of Maninder.
On the very next day i.e. on 28th May, 1993 a third agreement was executed reflecting an oral settlement between the heirs of Maninder, including VMS who were referred to as the second party on the one hand and the heirs of Mahinder referred to as the first party on the other.
18 lakhs to KK and Guneeta pursuant to the settlement his cheques for the balance amount of Rs 32 lakhs have number been honoured.
This fact had been fraudulently suppressed by VMS.
It was also alleged that the land over which AA was to have a lien by way of security for payment of Rs.15 lakhs had also been mortgaged to Punjab National Bank which was the subject matter of a suit.
Sir Datar Singh described as DS was a wealthy man owning several properties.
Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta.
That Smt.
In case of the same number being successful, Shri V.M. Singh shall pay an amount of Rs.
Shri V.M. Singh shall be the owner of all interests, rights and benefits that have accrued or may accrue in favour of Smt.
Its provisions were partly companyfirmatory of certain actions already taken by the respective parties in companynection with such properties, some clarificatory, some operative in praesenti and others executable in future.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta also release, relinquish and assign their rights in 4.3 acres of land situated in Khasra No.128 of Village Behta, Bairagarh Bhopal standing in the names of Smt.
Annexure C b pass a decree in terms of the said family settlement which is Annexure C to the present application as also in terms of IA No.1860 of 1993 and IA No.4252 of 1993 Annexure A B which companypromises have been accepted on 18.3.1993 and 27.5.1993 by this Honble Court and decree Suit No.63 of 1975 and 1495 of 1989 in terms thereof On 25th August, 1993 the High Court passed a decree in terms of all three agreements.
That Smt.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta shall number be liable or responsible directly or indirectly for any acts, deeds that Shri V.M. Singh may do in regard to the property in question and he further assures that he shall do all lawful acts and deeds under the law and assures that numberliability of any kind, civil or criminal, is attributed or taken against Smt.
In 1998, an application was made by KK and Guneeta seeking to add supplementary grounds to the application made by them in 1995 for setting aside the first agreement dated 18th March 1993 and decree dated 25th August 1993.
That Smt.
On 7th July 1995 KK and Guneeta made an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which they claimed that though Suit No.1495 was decreed in terms of the companypromise between them and VMS, five cheques given by VMS to them had been dishonoured on presentation.
Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta in favour of Shri V.M. Singh and he shall be solely responsible as owner of the property, but this deed is being executed only to facilitate if there is any technical hitch in implementing this companypromise in favour of Shri M.Singh who may get himself recorded as owner of the share of Smt.
50 lakhs.
