The sanctity of family settlements and their binding nature, emphasizing the need for harmony and peace within the family, influenced the court's decision by upholding the mother's right to dispose of her property during her lifetime and emphasizing that Clause 16 would only become operational after her demise.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. This petition impugns an order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CS No. 1345/17 dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC regarding maintenance of status quo by the purchasers of his mother’s property at Najibabad. It is the petitioner’s case that by way of a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MoFS), the properties bequeathed by the petitioner’s father were mutually divided. The relevant clause 16 thereof reads as under:-

“16. Smt, Shakuntla Ghai W/o Late. Shri K. C. Ghai (First Party) Desire so. That after her demise, all the moveable and immoveable assets of hers (First Party) will be shared & Distributed equally (1/3rd each) between her three sons Shri Anil Ghai, Shri Rajiv Ghai and Shri Shailendra Ghai families (Second Party, Third Party, Fourth Party here to).”

2. Mr. Prag Chawla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the MoFS has to be read in totality, that this clause created an interest in favour of the petitioner, therefore, if the properties owned by his mother were encumbered or otherwise parted with, then his share would be prejudiced. He contends that the sale of the petitioner’s mother’s immovable properties at Najibabad, Uttar Pradesh, at a price lesser than the circle rate and the consideration thereof not being shared on him has prejudiced his interest. Furthermore, it is contended that the entire sale consideration was not paid at the time of the registration of the Sale Deed, instead it was to be paid subsequently, therefore, the sale transaction is a sham and illegitimate so as to deprive the petitioner of his rights therein. The court, however, does not find the said contentions tenable for the following reasons:-

(i) Clause 16 of MoFS would become operational only after the demise of the petitioner’s mother. It does not, in any way, limit his mother’s right to use her estate during her life time; and

(ii) that the petitioner would have only a promise of a right and such promise would become operational apropos the assets of the mother only after her demise.

3. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any right apropos the said clause 16.

4. After the order was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought and was granted time to research judgments which could assist him in this case. The case was taken up again in the post-lunch session.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ravi Singhal & Ors. vs. Smt. Manali Singhal & Anr., 87 (2000) DLT 658 (DB), which held that a family settlement should be given due importance since it purports to bring about a settlement in the family so as to quiten the lis amicably and also to save the relationship within the family members. He relies upon the following portions of the judgment:-

“33. It was contended that there was no consideration for the agreement. Appellants No.2 and 3 were under no obligation to provide maintenance to the respondents but the questions is whether such a ground would be a valid ground at this stage to resist the respondent's claim for interim directions, which have been allowed by learned Single Judge on coming to a prima facie conclusion that the agreement is not without consideration and it was bona fide made and recognised by both the sides with a laudable object of putting an end to controversy. Where certain family differences are adjusted by means of a compromise, there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of the arrangement. Such an adjustment of the dispute with a view to maintain amity and peace in the family satisfies all the requirement of a family settlement. In case due to circumstances, which were in existence on the date when the agreement was arrived at, in order to maintain amity and peace in the family, a settlement was arrived at by which the appellants jointly agreed, as the te