Daya Rani v. Chanchal Kumar Chanana & Ors.

1. 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.

2. 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. 2019:DHC:6759

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 the same each month in her bank account bearing no. 0280 2191 002911 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hudson Line Branch, Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 11009 on or before 10th day of each English Calendar month and the first party shall be free to utilize it as per her free will. The second and third party will be responsible to take care of all hospitalization needs and bills, food etc of the first party. The first party shall have right to reside in the ground floor or the first floor of the property bearing No.2664, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and the second and third party undertake not to sell or transfer the ground and first floor of the said property during the lifetime of the first party, however, they shall be free to deal with the second floor and terrace. xxxx xxxx xxxx p) All the defendants shall take good care of their mother (the plaintiff) and shall make best endeavor to maintain harmonious relations amongst themselves and agree to remain bound by this settlement.”

6. Mr. Kapur points out that, even during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, she was constrained to file I.A. 9296/2016, seeking revocation of the settlement, on the ground that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not acted in compliance with their obligations to maintain the plaintiff. He drew my attention to the orders passed by the Court on this application to submit that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into the settlement agreement fraudulently, rendering it liable to be cancelled and revoked.

7. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the defendant No.4/applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in these applications.

8. At the outset, the application for revocation of the compromise has been made by defendant No.4, only after the death of the original plaintiff. It was only the mother who filed the application for revocation of the compromise during her lifetime. Even on that application, the Court noted (in the order dated 03.08.2016) that in the event of non-compliance, the remedy of the plaintiff would be to seek execution of the compromise decree, and not revocation thereof. Counsel was however given time to make submissions on this aspect, whereafter parties again attempted a further settlement of their disputes. The orders of this Court passed thereafter demonstrate that every attempt was made to ensure that the interests of the plaintiff were looked after. The defendants time and again assured the Court that the plaintiff would have access to her residence, and the terms of the settlement would be fulfilled. By an order dated 31.01.2018, it was recorded as follows: - “IAs. 7351/2016 & 9296/2016 in CS(OS) 1394/2015 Today, the plaintiff is personally present in Court. She states that she is satisfied with the arrangements that have been made by the defendants i.e. two sons. Learned counsel for plaintiff prays that the matter be monitored by the Court for a little longer time. In the interest of justice, renotify on 18th April, 2018 for directions.”

9. In view of the death of the original plaintiff on 10.05.2018, the application field by her was disposed of on 11.07.2018.

10. It appears from the aforesaid narration that the original plaintiff herself was initially dissatisfied with the conduct of her sons but, after the intervention of the Court, expressed her satisfaction in that regard. The applicant now seeks to re-agitate the same issues with which her mother had earlier approached the Court and, ultimately, expressed her satisfaction. The applicant's concern for her mother's welfare did not result in any application of this nature being moved by her during her mother's lifetime.

11. The terms of settlement decreed by the Court also entitled the applicant to certain amounts of money, and she has admittedly received a substantial proportion thereof. Although she has not mentioned the details thereof in the present application, it was submitted by Mr.Kapur, during the course of hearing, that she has received approximately ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) out of ₹58,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs only) payable to her [under clause 6(g)], and has also received the amount of ₹12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) which had been invested by her deceased father with one Mr.Dalip Narang [to which she was entitled under clause 6(i) of the terms of settlement].

12. It is also significant that the terms of settlement signed by the parties clearly provide as follows:- “7. By signing this Settlement Agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other and all the disputes, differences and litigations have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Mediation in which they participated willfully and without any sort of force, pressure, undue influence, or coercion.

8. That the parties undertake before the Hon'ble Court to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and not to dispute the same hereinafter in future. Both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this settlement agreement. xxxx xxxx xxxx

10. By signing this Settlement Agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other and all the disputes, differences and litigations have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Mediation in which they participated willfully and without any sort of force, pressure, undue influence, or coercion.”

13. In the face of this settlement, the applicant cannot be permitted to reopen the disputes between the parties. The sanctity of a family settlement has been emphasised in several decisions, including in Kale & Ors. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC