A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively. The defendant No. 1 is the niece of the plaintiff No. I (daughter of his brother ). Initially, she was alone impleaded as the defendant. However, thereafter, on an application moved by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were also impleaded. The plaintiffs have filed CS (OS) No. 690/2004 for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and cancellation of the sale deeds. Declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of property bearing No. 13, Kautilaya Marg, New Delh. Decree for permanent injunction, which was prayed, was that the defendants be restrained from leasing out portion of the said property or from selling, transferring, alienating this property to third party or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the said property. Cancellation of the sale deeds dated 16. 5. 1997, 19. 5. 1997 and 30. 6. 1997 was also prayed for.

( 2 ) IT is not necessary to go into the averments in the plaint, on the basis of which the aforesaid prayer was sought, nor is it necessary to gather in detail the defence of the defendants taken in the written statement filed in the said suit. Suffice it to state that the defendants had made counter claims as well. What is important is that during the pendency of the said suit, the parties entered into settlement. A joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'cpc') read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the parties. In this application, it was stated that they had settled all -their disputes and differences amicably on the terms and conditions as per the Deed of Settlement dated 25. 11. 2006. The said Deed of Settlement, in original and signed by the parties, was also annexed along with the application. This settlement shows that not only the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 were parties to the said agreement, Mr. Sanjit bakshi, M/s. Deer Farms Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Vaishali International management and Resources Ltd. were also parties to the settlement. In fact, between all these parties, apart from the suit in question, there were three more suits and four appeals. The disputes in all these eight suits/appeals were settled by the said Deed of Settlement. Mr. Sanjit Bakshi had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores, as per this settlement, to the plaintiff. A sum of Rs. 1 crore was to be paid at the time of recording of the statement and passing decree in terms thereof and at the same time the plaintitf No. 1 was to handover possession of complete annexe block in the said property in question to Mr. Sanjit Baksh. Balance amount of Rs. 3 crores was to be paid to the plaintiff No. 1 at the time of handing over the remaining actual physical vacant possession of the property on or before 10. 1. 2007. Qua the defendants, the settlement provided as under:-

"upon compliance of the terms of the settlement, SMW has no objection to the collaboration agreement dated 11. 6. 2004 and Agreement to sell dated 28. 1. 2005 and any dealings between the RW and SB and with dfpl with regard to the said property or any part thereof and SB and RW shall be liable to redeem the mortgage of the said property from the punjab National Bank as per their agreement/understanding after payment of the full outstanding inclusive of interest till date of payment and smw and VIMAR represent that total liability of VIMAR and SMW as on 31. 12. 2006 as verified by them from Punjab National Bank is less than Rs. 5. 69 crores [rupees five crores sixty nine lakhs only] and SB/rw shall be entitled to receive the original title deeds from the Punjab national. Bank. SB and RW shall redeem the mortgage within 15 days of handing over of the actual physical possession of the property to SB as agreed in clause l (d) and 2 above. "

( 3 ) THIS application was supported by affidavits of all the parties to the agreement, including the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants. This application came up