The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court declined the proposed amendments to the written statement, holding that the suit sought to enforce a right under the agreement dated November 04, 1994 and the Court fee had been paid accordingly.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

CM No.65/2013 and 66/2013

Allowed; subject to just exceptions.

FAO(OS) No.4/2013

1. Vide impugned order dated September 27, 2012 the learned Single Judge has dismissed IA No.10697/2001 filed by the appellants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying for leave to be granted to amend the written statement filed by the appellants who were defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit filed by the respondents.

2. Mother and daughter i.e. the respondents, had filed a suit seeking enforcement of an agreement dated November 04, 1994. The first respondent and the first appellant were married to each other, and unfortunately the relations turned sour. Respondent No.2 was born during the wedlock. Issues pertaining to alimony and maintenance cropped up. The mother and the daughter had to be provided for. It is not in dispute that the first appellant was a member of an HUF, Karta whereof was his father, the second appellant. A family house at No.24, Olof Palme Marg, Vasant Vihar belonged to the Joint Family.

3. The settlement agreement, enforcement whereof was prayed for noted the right of the respondents to be maintained and provides for agreed terms. Certain amounts were agreed to be paid. A motor vehicle and a residential accommodation was also agreed to be provided for.

4. As per the respondents there was breach of the agreement dated November 04, 1994. Enforcement of the agreement was prayed for. The suit was instituted in the year 1997.

5. Attempts to have the disputes reconciled and settled failed right up to the Supreme Court, and during the interregnum time passed and the parties did not seriously pursue the suit, and we find that the application in question was filed in the year 2001, and probably for the reason the parties were attempting a settlement, was not pressed. However, talks broke down resulting in issues being settled on February 27, 2006 as under:-

“1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for decree of specific performance of Family Agreement dated 4.11.94, against the defendants jointly and/or severally?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for payment of Rs.9,60,000/-(Rupees Nine Lacs and Sixty Thousand) on account of arrears of maintenance, vacation expenses and school fee?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts in respect of shares, securities, deposits, dividends and income of plaintiff in partnership, companies, HUF"s, which the defendants are managing and/or controlling and other companies and partnerships, including those detailed in Schedule II?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for disclosure against the defendants jointly and/or severally in relation to various movable properties including accounts and also of the HUF"s in which properties including accounts and also of the HUFs in which the defendants are co-parcenors? OPP

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to return all their movables as claimed in the plaint and detailed in Schedule I? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to interest on the amounts due and payable in terms of prayer a, b and f?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the Suit?

8. Whether the defendants have defaulted in paying the amounts and performing their obligations under the family settlement dated 4.11.1994 after having provided maintenance upto December 1996?

9. Whether the defendants are barred from raising the plea of undue influence, coercion, family settlement being without consideration, unreasonable and uncertain after the defendants have acted upon it?

10. Whether the family settlement was acted upon and accepted by the parties till December, 1996 and the defendants are debarred by the principle of estopple and acquiescence to resile from the said family settlement? OPP

11. Whether the Suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as alleged in Para (1) of the Written Statement? (OPD)

12. Whether the Suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of actions as alleged in Para (2) of the Written Statement? (OPD)

13. Whether th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document