S Gurcharan Singh & Anr v. Nawal Magan & Ors

1. The respondentnos.l and 2as ownersofthe property A-112, Derawal Nagar,New Delhi,entered in an agreement to sell dated 22"^* August, 2014 with this property with the appellants. Part paymentwasreceived by these respondents. Upon disputes arising in connection therewith, the appellants filed CS(OS)No.149/2016 seeking specific performance ofthe agreement. It appears thatthe Indian Overseas Bank,a creditor ofthe respondent nos.l and 2 set up a claim regarding this property resulting in the appellants filing two applications,I.A.Nos.8294/2016 and 16195/2016.

2. In this suit, by an order dated 31^^ January, 2017, the Id. Single Judge has rejected the I.A.No.8294/2016 filed by the plaintiffs forimpleadmentofthe Indian Overseas Bank as party in the suit. This order has been challenged by way of FAO(OS)No.67/2017. Before us all parties, including the Indian Overseas Bank have submitted that the Bank is a necessary and proper party for complete and effective adjudication of the disputes.

3. By the same order, the Id. Single Judge has rejected the I.A.No.16195/2016 also filed by the plaintiffseeking a directionto the respondent nos.l and 2 to deposit the amount of sale considerationreceived byitwiththeIndian OverseasBank. page2of[5] FAO(OS)67&68/2017 The order of this rejection has been challenged by way of FAO(OS)No.68/2017.

4. It appears that on reference of all the parties in these two appeals to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre,the parties have been able to resolve all issues not only between the appellants and respondent nos.l and 2 but also with the Indian Overseas Bank and executed a Settlement Agreementdated 22"^^December,2017.

5. In supportofthe settlementagreementdated 22 December, 2017 {Exhibit C-I), statements of S. Gurcharan Singh {appellant no.l), S. Amitpal Singh {appellant no.2), Shri Nawal Magan {respondentno.1),Shri Subhash Magan{respondentno[2])and Shri

6. These parties have stated that Exhibit C-I correctly records the settlemententered into bythem voluntarily withoutany kind of force,pressureorundueinfluence andthatithasbeen arrived atof their own volition. There is,therefore,no legal impedimentfor taking the same onrecord and acceptingthe same. Itisso directed.

7. In view thereof, interest ofjustice would merit, if Indian Overseas Bank is impleaded as party respondent in the present matter. page 3 of[5]

8. All the parties have given their undertaking to remain bound by the terms ofthe settlement arrived at between them.

9. We find that in terms of clause 6 of the settlement agreement, upon receipt of the payment, detailed in Clause 4 of Exhibit C-I, the Indian Overseas Bank is required to issue sale certificates in respect ofproperty mortgaged with it. Given the fact that basement,parking and four floors stand constructed on the suit property, the appellants would be entitled to issuance of sale certificate in respect ofeach floor ofthe property in their favour or in favour oftheir nominees. In view of the above, with the consent of all parties, it is directed as follows:

(i) The order dated 31®' January, 2017 dismissing the l.A.No.8294/2016 as well as l.A.No.16195/2016 is hereby set aside and quashed. The Indian Overseas Bank shall stand impleaded as party defendant No.3 in CS(OS)No.149/2016. Amended rnemo of parties shall be filed in the suit by the appellants within one week.

(ii) The Settlement Agreement dated 22"'' December, 2017

(iii) The undertakings tendered by all the parties are accepted.

(iv) The Indian Overseas Bank shall issue separate sale certificates for each ofthe floor ofthe property bearing No.A-112, FAO(OS)67&68/2017 page4of[5] mrnmnpf Derawal Nagar, New Delhi in favour of either the appellants or their nominees.

(v) The Registry shall draw up decree sheet in