Suman Sarna v. Sanjiv Markande & Anr.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.08.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 679/2017 whereby application filed by the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court, under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner filed a suit seeking partition and injunction in respect of property bearing No. A-199, Majlis Park, Delhi measuring 180 sq. yards, which was purchased by late Sh. Virender Kumar Markande, father of the Petitioner vide sale deed dated 07.05.1954, duly registered on 12.05.1954. Respondent No. 1 herein is the brother of the Petitioner while Respondent No. 2 is the mother i.e. widow of late Sh. Virendra Markande. The case of the Petitioner before the Trial Court is that her late father died intestate and therefore, she has equal share in the suit property and since the Respondents have admitted her 1/3rd share in the suit property, judgment on admission be passed qua her share in the said property. Before the Trial Court, the claim of the Petitioner was refuted by the Respondents and the Trial Court was of the view that on account of the rival contentions of the parties and there being no clear admission, the suit could not be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

3. Notice was issued in the present petition on 15.10.2019 and the matter was adjourned to 12.03.2020. On the said date, in the presence of the counsels for the parties, Court after hearing the matter was of the view that the dispute between the parties, who are related with each other, was quite narrow and in respect of one property and therefore in order to resolve the issue, both parties were directed to bring in a sealed cover, valuation of the suit property and Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 were directed to remain present in Court. Thereafter, the matter could not be taken on up on account of en bloc adjournments due to Pandemic COVID-19.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2020, parties have handed over their respective valuation reports of the suit property in sealed covers, which have been opened. From the respective reports, it is clear that there is hardly any variation in the valuation and the property has been assessed to a market value of around Rs. 4.[5] crores. The envelopes are re-sealed and taken on record.

5. After some hearing and with the able assistance of the counsel for the Petitioner and the Senior Counsel for the Respondents, as well as the Petitioner and wife of Respondent No. 1, who are present in Court, parties have been able to arrive at a settlement.

6. It is relevant to mention that it is a common ground between the parties that mother of the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, who is Respondent No.2 herein/Smt. Sudha Markande has relinquished her share in the suit property in favour of Respondent No. 1. Parties have agreed that Respondent No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores to the Petitioner, within a period of eight months from today, in three equal installments. The first installment shall be paid within a period of one month from today while the remaining two installments shall be paid within a period of seven months thereafter and an affidavit of undertaking shall be filed to this effect by Respondent No. 1.

7. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as aforementioned, let an affidavit of undertaking be filed by Respondent No. 1, within a period of three weeks from today as it is stated that Respondent No. 1 is posted outside Delhi.

8. Needless to state that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement as recorded by the Court today.

9. Court appreciates the efforts made by the respective parties to arrive at an amicable settlement and put a quietus to the litigation.

10. Revision Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.