Delhi High Court - Orders
Virender Kumar vs M/S Bdr Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd on 8 April, 2021
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 199/2021 & I.A. 5052/2021 (Under Order VII Rule 14 CPC), I.A. 5053/2021 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) VIRENDER KUMAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Dinesh Garg and Ms. Rachna Aggarwal, Advocates versus M/S BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Ms. Vandana Bhatnagar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI ORDER
% 08.04.2021
1. The present suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. The plaintiff claims that Late Shri Bal Mokand was the owner of property bearing No. R-251, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048 measuring 208 Sq. Yds., having purchased the same vide Sale Deed dated 29.11.1963. It is further claimed that after the death of Late Shri Bal Mokand, the suit property devolved upon his son- Shri Virender Kumar, the present plaintiff, by virtue of the Will dated 17.02.1978. As per the Will, life interest in the suit property was given to his wife- Smt. Pritam Devi. It is further claimed that Smt. Pritam Devi died intestate on 19.06.1991, leaving behind following legal heirs:-
S. No. Name of the Legal Heir(s) Relationship with the Deceased
1. Shri Virender Kumar Sharma Son
2. Mrs. Sarla Devi Daughter
3. Mrs. Kanta Kumari Daughter
4. Mrs. Indra Kumari (alias Mrs. Daughter Indira Kumari)
5. Mrs. Pushpa Devi Daughter
6. Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma Daughter
3. It is further claimed that of out of the aforesaid legal heirs, Smt. Indra Kumari expired on 13.02.2007 and Smt. Pushpa Devi expired on
30.08.1991. While Smt. Indra Kumari left behind two legal heirs, namely, Smt. Manju Sharma and Smt. Anju Sharma, Smt. Pushpa Devi left behind three legal heirs, namely, Smt. Jyoti Bali, Smt. Deepika Sharma and Shri Puneet Sharma.
4. It is the plaintiff's case that three daughters of Late Shri Bal Mokand, namely, Smt. Sarla Devi, Smt. Kanta Kumari and Smt. Kamlesh Sharma had executed Relinquishment Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The aforementioned legal heirs of Smt. Indra Kumari and Smt. Pushpa Devi also executed their respective Relinquishment Deeds with respect to their shares in favour of the plaintiff on the same date i.e., 05.10.2007. It is also claimed that Smt. Deepika Sharma had earlier executed the Relinquishment Deed through her Attorney, however subsequently, since the Power of Attorney was not available, a fresh Relinquishment Deed dated 01.02.2021 was executed in favour of the plaintiff which was registered as Document No.689 in Book No. I, Volume No.3691 on pages 94 to 104 in the office of Sub- Registrar-V, New Delhi. The details of all duly registered Relinquishment Deeds are as follows:
"i) Document No.12392 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No. 7693, on pages 163 to 166, on 05.10.2007 executed by Ms. Jyoti Bali
ii) Document No.12319 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 143 to 146, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mrs. Manju Sharma
iii) Document No.12320 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 147 to 150, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mrs. Sarla Devi
iv) Document No.12321 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 151 to 154, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma
v) Document No.12322 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 155 to 158, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mrs. Anju Sharma
vi) Document No.12323 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 159 to 162, on 05.10.2007 executed by Ms. Deepika through Attorney Ms. Sarla
vii) Document No.12324 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 163 to 166, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mr. Puneet Sharma
viii) Document No.12325 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.7690, on pages 167 to 170, on 05.10.2007 executed by Mrs. Kanta Sharma
ix) Document No.689 in Book No. I, Volume No.3691 on pages 94 to 104 executed by Ms. Deepika all registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-V, New Delhi."
5. It is averred that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an Agreement to Sell with respect to the suit property. However, subsequently, the defendant insisted on a joint Relinquishment Deed by all the legal heirs resulting into filing of the present suit.
6. Today, Ms. Vandana Bhatnagar, Advocate has appeared on advance notice on behalf of the defendant.
7. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the counsels have spoken to each other and the difference of opinion between the parties on the construction and interpretation of the aforementioned Relinquishment Deeds has been sorted out. It has been jointly submitted that although, on the first page of the aforementioned Relinquishment Deeds, the names of all the legal heirs have been mentioned however, each Relinquishment Deed was signed by only one person. All the Relinquishment Deeds are in the same format where the first page mentions the name of all the legal heirs however, each Relinquishment Deed is signed by a separate individual legal heir.
8. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that this being the position, the aforementioned Relinquishment Deeds are accepted as validly executed Relinquishment Deeds by the individual executors and in view of the above, there is no further requirement of obtaining any consolidated Relinquishment Deed.
9. In view of the above agreement and the statements made by the learned counsels for the parties, the present suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has prayed that in view of the fact that the suit has been decreed in view of the compromise between the parties on the first day itself, the Registry be directed to refund the entire court fees to the plaintiff.
11. Recently, the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam & Others. reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 109, held as under:-
"24. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of Section 69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them. Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma (supra), parties who have agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89, CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivize the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC and afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.
25. Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees in the guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the Court may, having regard to the previous conduct of the parties and the principles of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules pertaining to court fees. However, we do not find the present case as being of such nature.
26. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the Petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No. 1's claim.
27. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend to, all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee."
12. Accordingly, in view of the above decision, the suit having been compromised by way of an out of court settlement and the compromise decree having been passed at a pre-evidence stage, it is directed that the Registry shall refund the entire Court fee to the plaintiffs deposited by them at the time of filing of the suit.
13. In view of the above, the suit along with the pending applications is disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J APRIL 8, 2021 na Click here to check corrigendum, if any