Dr Mohdidrees (Raja) & Anr v. Baburam & Ors

2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 14^ July, 2010 decreed Civil Suit No.512/06 titled as Babu Ram Vs. Mohd. Idris and dismissed Civil SuitNo.511/06 titled as Mohd.Idris Vs.Praveen Kumar.

3. Thejudgmentofthe learned trial Court was challenged,by filing RCA RSA NOS.209/2016& 211/2016 Page 1 of[3] 2016:DHC:9193;?• Nos. 67/16/2010, 68/16/2010 and 193/16/10 which were dismissed being meritless.

4. On 27^'' September,2016 on hearing the parties this Court passed the following order "1. These appeals were more or less completely argued on the last date of hearing i.e 21.9.2016. At one stage, in the arguments it wassubmitted that instead ofinviting ajudgment on merits it would be better if the parties negotiate by settlementoutside the Courtso as to compromise the disputes.

2. Today, itisstated thatitis agreeable thatFAR in the suit plot be divided in the ratio of60% to the respondents and40% to the appellantsand which will be done by drawinga nominal line dividing theplot by giving 40% to the appellants and60% to the respondents. Nominaldivision oftheplot would not be a sub-divisionfor the purpose of municipal records orfor the same to violate any law but'it is onlyfor ensuring that each person will constructon hisportion allotted to him in the ratio ofFAR allowedfor construction viz 40% to the appellants and 60%to the respondents.

3. It is agreed that appellants will bring a site plan in this Court nominally dividing the plot 40% in favour of the appellants and60% infavour ofthe respondents and thisplan will then be signed by both the parties and a decree will accordingly bepassed whereby the disputes between theparties would stand settled as stated in the present order. It is also clarified that reference to the parties will include reference to the legalrepresentatives ofthe originalparties to the suit.

4. Liston 7'^ October, 2016.". '

5. Today parties are present in person and have placed on record the site plan prepared in terms of understanding arrived at and recorded by this Courton 27"^ September,2016.

6. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the issue of mesne profit payable to the respondent also needs to be dealt with. RSANOS.209/2016& 211/2016 Page2of[3]

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as issue of mesne profit is concerned, the respondents will withdraw the execution petition and will notclaim any mesne profit.,,

8. ' It is submitted by the parties thatthe decree passed by the learned trial Court may be directed to be modified in terms ofthe settlement arrived at between the parties whereby the.respective portions ofthe parties have been reflected in the site plan in red and green colour in ratio of40% and 60% respectively. The site plan which is now exhibited as C-1 is duly signed by all the parties and its correctness is affirmed on affidavit.It is also agreed by the.parties that this is only a nominal division ofthe plot and would not be a sub-division for the purpose of municipal record but only for ensuring that each person will construct on his portion allotted to him in the ratio ofFAR allowed for construction viz 40% to the appellants and 60% to the respondents. '

9. The RSA Nos.209/2016 and 211/2016 are disposed ofin terms ofthe above settlement and the site plan exhibit C-1.

10. Thejudgment and decree dated 14""July,2010 passed by the learned trial Court stands modified in above terms..

11. Registry is directed to preparethe decree sheet accordingly. CM No.28324/2016 in RSA No.209/2016 CM No.28389/2016 in RSA No.211/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.

DECEMBER 15,2016 -Pg'