Leela Dhameja v. Bela Dhameja

1. The parties have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 12th May, 2011 which has been before this court. Statement of the parties in support thereof have been separately recorded and they have confirmed the terms of the settlement agreement dated 12th May, 2011 which has been marked Exh P-i.

2. The parties have given undertakings to this court to remain bound by the terms of the settlement. The undertakings given by the parties are accepted and they shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement as well as their undertakings.

3. The settlement between the parties appears to be bonafide and entered into without any kind of force, pressure or undue influence. There is no legal impediment for taking the same on record. The agreement between the parties is taken on record. Parties shall 2011:DHC:1952[9] -2remain bound by the terms thereof.

4. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned counsel submit that no issue remains in the suit for adjudication and the suit be decreed on the terms and conditions in the settlement agreement Exh P-i.

5. In view of the above, it is ordered as follows:-

(i) a decree is passed on the terms and conditions detailed in para

7(a) to (e) of the settlement agreement dated 12th of May, 2011 which shall form part of the decree. (ii). In view of the settlement between the parties on which basis the decree has been passed today, the parties are permitted to approach the authorities concerned for mutation of the property in terms thereof. The concerned authorities shall ensure that the request for mutation of the properties in the name of the parties as per the decree is expeditiously processed. IA No. 2006/2009

6. In view of the settlement between the parties and suit being decreed, this application does not survive for adjudication and is disposed of. JUNE 02, 2011 kr (AJ[1] )41J-' _fr (/i cjric)th' k15 / r^— u /.c If f C c) - 4L ct C(r:' I * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 284/2009 SMT.

VERSUS

BELA DHAMEJA Defendant Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Singh for Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

1. The plaintiff had instituted this suit for partition of property No.D- 5/16, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi claiming the plaintiff and the defendant to be the only owners thereof. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on n April, 2010 declaring the plaintiff and the defendant to be having one half share each in the said property.

2. The parties thereafter were referred to mediation and a Settlement Agreement dated 12 th May, 2011 was signed where it was inter a/ia agreed that the first, second and third floors of the property, which was then comprising of ground floor only, will be constructed and the floors shall be shared.

3. This application has been filed stating that construction has not been possible owing to the property not having been mutated in the records of the CS(OS) 28412009 4' ) '\^ \^-V ri DDA in the name of the parties.

4. The mutation is stated to have been held up for the reason of the defendant having not obtained the Relinquishment Deed of one Mr. Mayank. Dhameja.

5. It appears that the parties claimed to have become the owners of the said property being the daughters-in-law of Shri Ishwar Das Dhameja, erstwhile owner of the said property and who had bequeathed the said property to the husbands of the respective parties and in pursuance to a Family Settlement.