Jatinder Kumar Popli v. Ashok Kumar Popli

2. In view ofthe above, the caveat stands discharged. C.M.No.26106/2018 in EFA(OS) 9/2018 C.M.No.26458/2018 in EFA(OS) 10/2018 Subject to the applicant filing the certified/typed/legible copies of the documents annexed with the petition within four weeks, the application is allowed anddisposed of. EFA(OS) 9/2018 & EFA (OS) 10/2018

1. The. present appeals have been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by a common order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Executing Court on the Original Side in Execution Petition no.18/2018 filed by the respondent no.3 herein/decree holder and in Execution Petition no.21/2018 filed by the appellant herein/decree holder. 2.' By the impugned order the Learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to execute - the necessary Relinquishnient Deed/ Conveyance Deed in respect of premises bearing no..S-396, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi in favour of the respondent no.3(father of the, respondent no.1 andbrother,of the respondent no.2), within sixweeks. from the date ofpassing ofthe said order.

3. Aperusal ofthe impugned order reveals that both the captioned Execution Petitions were filed by, the respective decree holders" (appellant and the respondent no.3 in the present proceeding) seeking.execution ofthe judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017, passed on the basis of a settlement recorded between the parties in Court on •- 31.08.2017. EFA(OS) 9/2018 &10/2018 page 2of[5].

4. After reproducing the terms and conditions of the settlement, arrived at between the parties as recorded on 31.08.20,17, in para 2 of the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge stated that the respondent nos.[2] and 3 herein are siblings arid that the respondentno.l' herein is the son^ of the respondent no.3,. The learned Single Judge further noted that as per the teirns and conditions of the settlement, it was agreed that the respondent nos.l and 2 would pay a sum of Rs.3.20 crores to the appellant in full arid final settlement of all his claims. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.20 crores, the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the plaintiff no.l in the suit i.e. Radha Swami Satsang Beas. Further, it was noted that the said sum of Rs. 3.20 crores was to be paid by the respondent no.3 herein on behalf of the respondent nos.l and 2, before the Sub- Deed relinquishing all his rights, title and interest in the subject property, in favour ofrespondent nos.l and 2.

5. It is a matter of record that the respondent, no.3 has paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to Radha Swami Satsang Beas (plaintiff no.l in the suit), and.thereafter, plairitiff no.l had withdrawn the suit. This left a balance sum of Rs.2.80 crores payable to the appellant. Out of the aforesaid amount, the respondent no.3 had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in the Registry, leaving a balance sum of Rs. 2.70 crores as payable to the appellarit.

6. The only grievanceraised by the appellant in the execution petition was that he was agreeable to- executing a Relinquishment EFA(OS) 9/2018 &10/2018 page3of[5] Deed in favour of the respondent nos.l and 2 alone and not in favour ofthe respondent no.3.

7. Taking note of the fact that the respondent no.3 had filed on record the NOCs ofthe respondent nos. 1, and 2 executed in his favour, stating inter alia that the respondent no.2 had already executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of the respondent no.3 and the aforesaid respondent nos.l & 2 had no objection if the appellant herein would execute a Relinquishment Deed, transferrinjg his 1/3'^'^' share of the subject property in favour of the respondent no.3, as also, ' the fact that the respondent no.1 had executed a power of attorney ill favour of his father i.e. respondent no.3 stating therein that he had no,, ' _ objection to the appellant herein executing a relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent-no.3, the learned Single Judge opined that the appellant had sought to raise a needless controversy and once he would receive a sum of Rs. 2.80 crores as his share in the suit. • property, which the respondent no.3 was ready and willing to pay, then there was no question of any apprehension in his mind with %. regardto.evasion ofthe stamp duty etc., by the respondents. y''' 8. As a result, theimpugned order came to bepassed directing the,, appellant to execute the Relinquishment Deed/ Conveyance Deed in favour of the respondent no.3 within six weeks reckoned from the, ~ date ofpassing ofthe said order.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the.appellant is" aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that he has an apprehension that the respondent no.1, who is a ptoanent citizen of EFA(OS) 9/2018 &10/2018, ',,. ^page 4of[5] ' U.S.A, may renege from the NOC given by him in favour of his father, respondent no.3 or lay a claim against the appellant and, similarly, issues may be raised by Government authorities including the Collectorate of Stamps and the Income Tax, Department with regard to the legality or validity of the Relinquishment Deed executed by respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3.

10. We are of the opinion that, the appellant's aforesaid apprehension can be assuaged by directing the respondent no.3 to file an.undertaking in the execution proceeding to the effect that he shall be solely responsible for any legal consequences that may flow if the respondent no.l reneged from the NOC or on account of any claim, by the Government agencies with regard to the Relinquishment Deed executed by the respondent no.2 in his favour. An affidavit to the said effect shall be filed by the respondent no.3 within one week in the aforesaid Execution- Petitions with copies furnished to•the appellant.

11. The appeals are disposed ofalongwith thepending applications. JULY 09,2018 sr EFA(OS) 9/2018 & 10/2018 HIMA KOHLI,J REKH LI, J. page 5 of[5]