Delhi District Court
Ravi Prakash Chawla vs The State ( Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi ) on 2 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(WEST)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
P.C No. 176/10/05
Unique ID Case No. 02401C1102572005
Ravi Prakash Chawla
S/o Sh. A.L. Chawla
R/o H. No. 71/99, Prem Nagar,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058
... Petitioner
Versus
1 The State ( Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi )
through its Chief Secretary, Delhi
2 Smt. Sunita, W/o Shri Subhash Kapoor,
R/o B-247, IIIrd Jhilmil Colony, Delhi
3 Smt. Sneh W/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar Ahuja
R/o E-81/82, Ground floor, Arya Samaj Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
4 Smt. Rajni W/o Shri Gulshan
R/o A-3/6, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi
5 Smt. Varsha W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar
R/o C-34, Shyam Park, Nawada,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
6 Smt. Sushil Gulati W/o Shri Man Singh Gulati
D/o late Shri Sohan Lal
R/o United States of America
Complete address not know,
however she has filed Caveat through
one Shri Yogesh Sharma,Advocate
R/o 1366, D-1/8, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi as
her attorney (respondent no. 2 to 6 are near
relatives)
... Respondents
PC No. 176/10/05 1/15
Date of original institution of the case-05.12.2005
Date on which, judgment have been reserved- 23.12.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment-02.01.2016
JUDGMENT:
1 The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner Sh. Subhash Chawla filed Probate petitioner under Section 276 and 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate in respect of the Will dated 05.07.2000 executed by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj in favour of the petitioners.
2 It is stated late Sh. Puran Chand ( hereinafter referred as "the deceased") was the owner of property bearing plot No 6/4 ( New No. B-11) measuring 120 sq yds out of Khasra No. 69 ( wrongly mentioned as Khasra No. 56 ), in the area of Village Nangli Jalib, now know as colony named Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110018. Smt. Krishna Wanti the wife of deceased died on 19.02.1999, prior to death of deceased. It is further stated that deceased died on 29.04.2003 and during his life time he executed a registered will dated 05.07.2000.
3 Objector/respondents no. 2, Smt. Sunita, respondent no. 3, Smt. Sneh, respondent no. 4 Smt. Rajni, respondent no. 4 Smt. Rajni and respondent no. 6 Smt. Suhil Gulati filed objections and contested the present petition.
4 On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.02.2008 in both the cases.
1. Whether the Will dated 5.07.2000 of Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj is proper and vaild? OPP
2. Whether the Will dated 5.07.2000 of Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj is forged and fabricated? OPR 2 to 6
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate/letter of administration in respect of the Will dated 05.07.2000 of Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj? OPP
4. Relief PC No. 176/10/05 2/15 5 Petitioners in both the case examined PW-1 Sh. Rajan Mahajan, Advocate who proved his affidavit as Ex. P-1, PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar, LDC from the office of Sub- Registrar office, Janakpuri who proved the registration of the will dated 05.07.2000 executed by the deceased Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj and petitioner Sh. Ravi Praksah Chawala was examined as PW-3.
6 Respondent no. 2 Smt. Sunita examined as RW-2/1, Smt. Sneh Ajuja as R-3W-1 and Smt. Sushil Gulati as R-6/1 and as per statement of Sh. Sunil Lalwani, evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 to 5 was closed on 20.04.2012.
7 The case was at the stage of recording of objector/respondent's evidence and R6W1 Mrs Sushil Gulati was under cross-examination. However, the parties submit that there is likelihood of settlement between the parties and as per the request, the matter was referred to Mediation Center on 23.03.2015. The matter was received back on 30.04.2015 alongwith the agreement between the parties. The terms and conditions of the settlement are as follows :
1. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent no. 6 in both the probate cases bearing no. 175/2010 & 176/2010 namely Smt. Sushil Gulati shall receive a total amount of Rs. 45,000/- ( Rs. Forty Five Lakhs only) jointly from the petitioners in probate case no.
175/2010 & 176/2010 namely Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla & Smt. Anita chawla in full and final settlement of all her claims in the properties left behind by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj i.e property no. B-11, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 and property no. 71/99, Prem Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, these two properties have been bequeathed by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj in favour of Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla and his wife Smt. Anita Chawla by way of two separate wills dated 5.7.2000.
2. It is further agreed that Smt. Sushil Gulati shall withdraw her objections to grant of probate/letters of PC No. 176/10/05 3/15 administration of these two will dated 5.7.2000 which she had earlier find in the probate cases no. 175/2010 and 176/2010 alongwith the applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Further Smt. Sushil Gulati respondent no. 6 in the two probate cases shall make a statement that she has no objection if the probate/letter of Administration in respect of two will dated 5.7.2000, being subject matter of probate cases nos 175/2010 and 176/2010 is granted to the petitioners therein namely Smt. Anita Chawla and Ravi Prakash Chawla.
3. It is further agreed between the parties that the two petitioners namely Ravi prakash Chawla and Smt. Anita Chawla shall make this payment of Rs. 45,00,000/- ( Rs. Forty Five Lacs only to Smt. Sushil Gulati on or before 30.04.2015, failing of which this settlement shall be treated as null and void.
4. It is further agreed between the parties that Smt. Sushil Gulati who is plaintiff in suit no. 194/2007 titled as Sushuil Gulati Versus Ravi Prakash Chawla & others, shall immediately withdraw her suit no. 194/2007 now pending in the court of Dr. Archana Sinha A.D.J, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on receiving of settlement amount as agreed above.
5. It is further agreed between parties that neither Smt. Sushil Gulati nor any of her legal heirs will claim any right title or interest of what so ever nature in the properties left behind by Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj and against the petitioners Ravi Prakash Chawla and Smt. Anita Chawla in any court of law or legal authority at any time in future and all such properties of Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj shall vest exclusively, in the petitioners Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla & Smt. Anita Chawla who are petitioners in the two probate cases mentioned above and now after Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla & Smt. Anita Chawla shall be full and absolute owner of the properties bearing no. B-11, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi-110018 and property no. 71/99, Prem Nagar, New Delhi respectively, as per terms of the wills dated 5.7.2000 executed by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj.
6. It is also agreed between the parties that the respondents no. 2 to 5 in both the probate cases PC No. 176/10/05 4/15 bearing no. 175/2010 & 176/2010 namely Smt. Sunita , Smt. Sneh, Smt. Rajni & Smt. Varsha shall receive a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakhs only) each jointly form the petitioners in probate case no. 175/2010 & 176/2010 namely Ravi Prkash Chawla & Smt. Anita Chawla in full and final settlement of all their claims in the properties left behind by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj i.e property no. B-11, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 and property no. 71/99, Prem Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which two properties have been bequeathed by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj in favour of Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla and his wife Smt. Anita Chawla by way of two separate wills dated 5.7.2000.
7. It is further agreed that respondent no. 2 to 5 in both the above mentioned probate cases bearing no. 175/2010 & 176./2010 namely Smt. Sunit, Smt. Sneh, Smt. Rajni & Smt. Varsha shall immediately withdraw their objections to grant of probate/letter of administration of these two will dated 5.7.2000 which they had earlier filed in the probate cases no. 175/2010 & 176/2010. And further Smt. Sunita, Smt. Sneh, Smt. Rajni & Smt. Varsha respondent no. 2 to 5 in the two probate cases shall make a statement that they have no objection if the probate/letter of administration in respect of two will dated 5.7.2000, being subject matter of probate case no. 175/2010 and 176/2010 is granted to the petitioners therein namely Smt. Anita Chawla and Ravi Pakash Chawla.
8. It is further agreed between the parties that the two petitioners namely Ravi Prakash Chawla and Smt. Anita Chawla shall make this payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lacs only) to each of respondent no. 2 to 5 namely Smt. Sunita, Smt. Sneh, Smt. Rajni & Smt. Varsha on or beofre 30.04.2015.
9. It is further agreed between parties that respondent no. 2 to 5 namely Smt. Sunita, Smt. Sneh, smt. Rajni and Smt. Varsha that neither any of the respondents no. 2 to 5 nor any of their respective nor or any of their legal heirs will claim any right title or interest of what so ever nature in the properties left behind by Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj, and against the petitioners Ravi Prakash Chawla PC No. 176/10/05 5/15 and Smt. Anita Chawla in any court of law or legal authority at any time in future and all such properties of Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj shall vest exclusively, in the petitioners Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla & Smt. Anita Chawla and now after Sh. Ravi Prakash Chawla & Smt. Anita Chawla shall be full and absolute owner of the properties bearing no. B-11, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 and property no. 71/99, Prem Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi respectively, as per terms of the wills dated 5.7.2000 executed by late Sh. Puran Chand Bajaj.
10.It is agreed that none of the parties or their legal heirs shall not litigate against each other in respect of the subject matter of the above said three cases subject to compliance of terms and conditions of this settlement by the parties.
Since the matter is settled in mediation, Smt. Sushil Gulati is entitled to get refund the court fee under Section 16 of Court Fees Act in her suit no. 194/2007 pending in the court of Dr. Archana Sinha, ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi This settlement has been voluntarily arrived at between the parties with their own free will and without any force, pressure or coercion and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned herein above. The contents of the settlement have been explained to the parties in vernacular and they understood the same and have admitted the same to be correct.
8 On 30.04.2015 petitioners and all objectors/respondents appeared alongwith their counsel. The petitioner in compliance of the Mediation agreement dated 27.04.2015 appeared before the court and statement of objector/respondent no. 6 Smt. Sushil Gulati recorded. She proved the settlement agreement Ex. C-1 and on oath stated that the terms of the settlement and received a pay order of Rs. 44 lacs as per settlement agreement.
PC No. 176/10/05 6/159 The statement of remaining objectors/respondents no. 2 to 5 not recorded as respondent no. 2 was not present and matter was adjourned for 05.05.2015.
10 On 05.05.2015 the statement of petitioner qua the settlement with respondent no. 6 recorded and respondent no. 2 to 5 requested for further time for recording their statement. On the same day petitioner also moved an application for deposit the settlement amount for respondent no. 2 to 5 in terms of settlement agreement and same was deposited in the court. Thereafter at request, matte was put up on 01.06.2015 for recording of statement of objector/respondents no. 2 to 5. Again respondent no. 2 to 5 sought time for recording of their statement for 06.07.2015. Similarly again time granted for 16.07.2015.
11 On 16.07.2015 respondent no. 2 to 5 expressed that they will not make the statement as per settlement agreement before the court then the petitioner filed application under Section 283, 284, 287, 288 and 295 of Indian Succession Act read with order 7 rule 11 and section 151 CPC for rejecting the objections of respondent no. 2 to 5 with regard to not giving their statement before the court as per settlement agreement Ex. C-1.
12 The respondent no. 2 to 5 filed application under Section 151 CPC for taking objections against the Mediation settlement which was duly replied by petitioner, However, on 15.12.2015 counsel for respondent no. 2 to 5 submitted that now respondent no. 2 to 5 are desirous to make statement as per settlement agreement Ex. C-1 and the application filed on their behalf was dismissed as withdrawn. The ld. counsel for the petitioner also did not press his application filed application under Section 283, 284, 287, 288 and 295 of Indian Succession Act read with order 7 rule 11 and section 151 CPC PC No. 176/10/05 7/15 for rejecting the objections of respondent no. 2 to 5 with regard to not giving their statement before the court as per settlement agreement Ex. C-1. The matter was adjourned for recording of statement of respondent no. 2 to 5 on 23.12.2015. On 23.12.2015 respondent no. 2 to 5 changed their mind and submit that they are not willing to make their statement.
13 I have heard ld. counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Subhash Chawla and Sh. A.K. Dube and Ms Shakuntala counsel for respondent no. 2 to 5 and perused the record.
14 In order to appreciate the respective contentions let us go through the law in the present circumstances because it is not the first instance, since one decade, this situation arrived in several cases where parties arrived at a settlement in Mediation and later on tried to back out. The first matter decided by our own High Court is Jasbir & Others Vs. State and Another, 142 (2007) DLT 141. In this case it was held as under:
"9. Reverting to the case at hand, it is clear from the settlement that the parties had agreed to bury all their differences. The complainant was also facing criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and also under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He has been the beneficiary of the settlement inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are withdrawn by Sarita and proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC are also quashed in view of the cooperation of Sarita. This being a complete package, the complainant PC No. 176/10/05 8/15 cannot turn around and oppose the petition after he agreed for quashing of these proceedings at the time of mediation proceedings. There is another aspect which needs to be emphasized. The settlement was arrived at during mediation proceedings. The Legislature has amended Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an all around attempt by the Legislature and Judiciary, as well as the Executive, to promote the settlement of disputes through the process of Mediation. Therefore, once disputes between the parties have been settled by the process of mediation, it would be in the public interest as well as to attach importance to such a process and treat the settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise, the movement of mediation may itself suffer if the parties are given to understand that even after they agree for settlement, one of the parties can still back out."
15 Another case of our own High Court is Surinder Kaur & Others vs. Pritam Singh & Others, 154 (2008) DLT 598, in which it is held that :
"8. By amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002, Legislature amended the provisions of Section 89 thereof under the PC No. 176/10/05 9/15 heading 'Special Proceedings' and provided for settlement of disputes outside the Court. This provision contained in Section 89 stipulates that where it appears to the Court that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court may refer the matter for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Thus, the legislative intention is to encourage settlement of disputes through the mechanism of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). Sub-section (2) of Section 89, inter alia, provides that where the dispute has been referred for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. Since compromise has been effected in mediation proceedings, the procedure which is to be followed is he one prescribed, namely, Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 reference to which has already been made. We may also take assistance from Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this behalf. As per provisions contained in Rule 3 of Order 23 a decree in terms of compromise can be passed when the Court is satisfied that the parties have compromise the subject matter of the suit.PC No. 176/10/05 10/15
16 Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark judgment of Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 24 held as under:
"37. When the court refers the matter to arbitration under Section 89 of the Act, as already noticed, the case goes out of the stream of the court and becomes an independent proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal. Arbitration being an adjudicatory process, it always ends in a decision. There is also no question of failure of the ADR pro0cess or the matter being returned to the court with a failure report. The award of the arbitrators is binding on the parties and is executable/enforceable as if a decree of a court, having regard to Section 36 of the AC Act. If any settlement is reached in the arbitration proceedings, then the award passed by the Arbtiral Tribunal on such settlement, will also be binding and executable/ enforceable as if a decree of a court, under Section 30 of the AC Act.
38. The other four ADR processes are non- adjudicatory and the case does not go out of the stream of the court when a reference is made to such a non-adjudicatory ADR forum. The court retains its control and jurisdiction over the case, even when the matter is before the ADR forum.PC No. 176/10/05 11/15
When a matter is settled through conciliation, the settlement agreement is enforceable as if it is a decree of the court having regard to Section 74 read with Section 30 of the Act Act. Similarly, when a settlement takes place before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat award is also deemed to be a decree of the civil court and executable as such under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though the settlement agreement in a conciliation or a settlement award of a Lok Adalat may not require the seal of approval of the court for its enforcement when they are made in a direct reference by parties without the intervention of the court, the position will be different if they are made on a reference by a court in a pending suit/proceedings. As the court continues to retain control and jurisdiction over the cases which it refers to conciliation, or Lok Adalats, the settlement agreement in conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court for recording it and disposal in its terms.
39. Where the reference is to a neutral third party ("mediation" as defined above) on a court reference, though it will be deemed to be reference to Lok Adalat, as the court retains its control and jurisdiction over the matter, the PC No. 176/10/05 12/15 mediation settlement will have to be placed before the court for recording the settlement and disposal. Where the matter is referred to another Judge and settlement arrived at before him, such settlement agreement will also have to be placed before the court which referred the matter and that court will make a decree in terms of it.
40. Whenever such settlements reached before non-adjudicatory ADR fora placed placed before the court, the court should apply the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code and make a decree/order in terms of the settlement, in regard to the subject-matter of the suit/proceedings, the court will have to direct that the settlement shall be governed by Section 74 of the ACT Act (in respect of conciliation settlements) or Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in respect of settlements by a Lok Adalat or a mediator). Only then such settlements will be effective."
17 The effect of combined reading of above paras is that the settlement in a ADR process is binding in itself.
18 Our own High Court after relying on the above said two High Court judgments, Jasbir's (Supra) Surinder Kaur's (Supra) and Supreme Court judgment Afcons Infrastructure's (Supra), in PC No. 176/10/05 13/15 several cases held that Mediation settlement is binding upon the parties. Such unreported judgments are, Khaleek Ahmed vs. Mohd. Naved Ansari & Anr., CM (M) 291/2011 & CM Nos. 5250/2011 & 6278/2011 decided on 30.01.2011; Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. vs. K.M. Tayal, CM (M) 1405/2009 & CM No. 17389/2009 decided on 23.02.2012; Rakesh Kumar vs. State & Anr. , WP (Crl) 1018/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 8566/2010 decided on 14.03.2012; Aditya Chandershekhar Pandi & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , W.P. (Crl) 603/2012 decided on 01.08.2012, Naveen Kumar vs. Smt. Khilya Devi & Anr., CS (OS) No. 2248/2010 decided on 01.09.2011.
19 In view of the above well settled law that an agreement of parties before the Mediation is binding in itself, the parties cannot wrigle out, therefore respondent no. 2 to 5 are bond by their voluntarily consent and agreement dated 27.04.2015 before the Mediation Center. They are not allow to back or wrigle out from their statement.
20 Petitioner has already deposited pay order for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each in the name of respondent no. 2 to 5. Respondent no. 2 to 5 are at liberty to withdraw the same.
21 Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations, the petitioner is entitled for Letter of Administration in respect of the property bearing no. 6/4 ( New No. B-11), Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 left behind by the deceased Sh. Puran Chand be PC No. 176/10/05 14/15 issued in favour of the petitioner Sh. Ravi Chawla after obtaining requisite Court Fee and Administration Bond for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000- the valuation of the subject property as agreed by the petitioner with one surety of like amount. Further, the petitioner is directed to file the inventory of immovable property within six months and final statement of account within one year from the date of receipt of formal Letter of Administration.
Petitioner is also entitled to refund the court fee under Section 16 of the Court fees Act.
22 It is further clarified that question of title, share and ownership of the property mentioned above is not decided by this court.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open (SANJAY KUMAR)
Court on 02.01.2016 ) ADJ-02 ( West)
Delhi
PC No. 176/10/05 15/15
PC No. 176/10/05 16/15
PC No. 176/10/05 17/15
PC No. 176/10/05 18/15