CS(OS)--1394/2015. Case: DAYA RANI Vs. CHANCHAL KUMAR CHANANA & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CS(OS)--1394/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 09, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26th November, 2019 Pronounced on: 09th December, 2019 + CS(OS) 1394/2015
DAYA RANI ..... Plaintiff
Through: None.
versus
CHANCHAL KUMAR CHANANA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Aditya Gaur, Advocate for D-1.
Mr.Anuj Gupta & Ms.Pinki Aggarwal, Advocates for D-2.
Mr. Ashish Kapur & Ms. Chhavi Luthra, Advoates for D-4 alongwith D-4 in person.
%
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
J U D G M E N T
I.A 14004/2018 [by defendant No.4 under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the CPC for transposition as plaintiff] and
I.A. 14645/2018 [by defendant No.4 under Section 151 of the CPC for recall of settlement] in CS(OS) 1394/2015.
-
The defendant No. 4, Ms. Geeta Budhiraja, has filed these applications for transposition as a plaintiff in the suit, and for setting aside a mediated settlement dated 12.01.2016.
-
The suit was instituted by Smt. Daya Rani, mother of the defendants, on 12.05.2015. She sought partition of certain properties owned by her late husband.
CS(OS) 1394/2015 Page 1 of 6
-
The parties were referred to mediation by an order dated
16.10.2015, and entered into the settlement agreement on 12.01.2016. The original plaintiff was described as the first party, and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were described as the second party to the fifth party, respectively. The settlement agreement was signed by all of them, as well as by their counsel. It records that the parties arrived at an amicable resolution of their differences after seven sittings with the mediator. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement by the order of this Court dated 15.01.2016.
-
The plaintiff has since died on 10.05.2018. Defendant No. 4 now seeks transposition as plaintiff, and revocation of the settlement on the contention that the settlement was predicated upon defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (being the sons of the original plaintiff) taking good care of their mother, which they failed to do. She submits that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were granted a disproportionate share of the suit properties in the settlement, in consideration of their assurance that they would look after their mother, and be responsible for her expenses.
-
In support of these applications, Mr. Ashish Kapur, learned counsel for defendant No.4, draws my attention to the following clauses of the settlement agreement:-
“d) The second and third party undertake to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month (7,500/- each) to the first party by depositing...
To continue reading
Request your trial