Back
Holds Unrecorded Monetary Assurances Cannot Alter Concluded Settlement Without Proof
The has firmly ruled that unrecorded monetary assurances cannot be added to a concluded settlement merely on the basis of subsequent assertions, unless establishes , , or other circumstances vitiating the parties' consent. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by three defendants challenging a passed in a property dispute.
The Dispute and the Settlement
The case involved a dispute over property at E-16/1269, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondents, Dinesh Mehan and Danny Mehan (sons of Mohinder Kumar Mehan), had filed a suit for and against the appellants, Aarti Kakkar, Bharti @ Sunaina Jethi, and Deepak Mehan (children of Bal Kishan Mehan). The appellants were occupying one room and kitchen in the property.
During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a settlement. On , all three appellants appeared personally before the trial court along with their counsel and made a joint statement on . They acknowledged that they and their legal heirs had no right, title, or interest in the property and handed over peaceful possession along with keys. In return, the respondents handed over three demand drafts totaling Rs. 40 lakh. The parties expressly stated that this was their "" and undertook that there would be no further litigation.
The trial court specifically enquired whether they had understood the terms of settlement, to which they replied in the affirmative. A was passed accordingly.
The Challenge and Allegations
Approximately four months later, the appellants moved an application under seeking to set aside the . They claimed that they had agreed to relinquish their rights only on the assurance that they would receive an additional Rs. 3 crore upon sale of the property. They also relied on two post-dated cheques of Rs. 5 lakh each and alleged that their consent had been obtained through false promises and representations.
The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the settlement expressly recorded Rs. 40 lakh as and contained no reference to any additional payment or assurance. The court noted that the appellants had voluntarily made the statements and had not raised any objection at the time of recording the compromise.
Maintainability of the Appeal
Before addressing the merits, the High Court examined the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal against a . The court referred to the 's decision in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors. (2025 INSC 570), which clarified the statutory scheme under and .
The court held that the appellants had followed the correct sequential course: they first approached the trial court which recorded the compromise, and after its dismissal, they could challenge both the order and the in appeal under read with . The appeal was therefore held maintainable.
Legal Analysis: No
On merits, the court analyzed whether the stood vitiated on account of alleged unrecorded terms. Referring to the Explanation to , the court noted that an agreement or compromise which is under the shall not be deemed lawful. However, the court found no evidence of , , or .
The court observed that the joint statement dated
was
"neither vague nor ambiguous, nor was it incomplete or uncertain."
The consideration of Rs. 40 lakh was specifically quantified, the appellants simultaneously handed over possession and keys, and they expressly acknowledged having no right, title, or interest in the property.
Significantly, the court noted that the alleged additional payment of Rs. 3 crore was not an incidental term but, according to the appellants themselves, an integral part of the consideration.
"If payment of a further sum of Rs.3 Crores was indeed an integral part of the consideration which induced the Appellants to surrender possession and relinquish their claims in the suit property, it would ordinarily and naturally have found a specific and express mention in the settlement recorded before the learned Trial Court,"
the court observed.
The court applied the principles embodied in , holding that once the terms of a transaction have been reduced into writing, oral assertions cannot ordinarily be relied upon to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms so recorded.
Key Observations
The court made several significant observations:
"Such an obligation cannot be read into a concluded settlement merely on the basis of subsequent assertions, unless its existence as part of the final bargain is established by
."
"Consequently, unless the Appellants are able to establish
,
or any other circumstance affecting the validity of their consent, the alleged oral assurance of payment beyond the recorded amount cannot, by itself, be read into or added to the settlement."
The court also noted that the appellants had introduced an explanation in the appeal that the additional monetary terms were deliberately not recorded due to court fee and tax implications—a fact not mentioned in their application before the trial court. This, the court held,
"assumes the character of an
."
Court's Decision
The dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's refusal to set aside the . The court concluded that the appellants had failed to establish that the settlement was entered into under any or that their statements were made without understanding their nature and effect.
"The material on record does not establish any
,
or other circumstance sufficient to render the compromise
,"
the court said.
"In the absence of such material, the alleged unrecorded assurances cannot be permitted to supplant, vary or enlarge the settlement which the parties themselves solemnly placed before the Court and acted upon."
The ruling reinforces the sanctity of consent decrees and the high threshold required to overturn them. It serves as a reminder that parties who voluntarily settle disputes and affirm their consent before a court cannot later resile from the settlement based on unsubstantiated allegations of unrecorded promises.
