Rajiv Shakdher, J.

IA No. 6903/1996 (u/s 151 of CPC by pltf.)

1. This is an application filed by Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh the original plaintiff who passed away on 29.11.2005. Sh. S. Tejinder Singh who is one of the sons of Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh has been brought on record as her legal representative (in short `L.R.'). By this application what is sought to be impugned is a consent decree dated 25.11.1993. A perusal of the cause title and the reliefs prayed for in the suit would show that Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh had filed the suit to declare the "memorandum of oral family settlement" dated 10.03.1989 arrived at between herself and her other son Govinder Singh (defendant/respondent) as void. To be noted the said settlement is in writing executed between the plaintiff and the defendant/ respondent. In the suit a compromise was arrived at and the aforementioned decree dated 25.11.1993 was passed.

2. Therefore, in order to appreciate the scope and ambit of the captioned application the following relevant facts will require to be noticed:

3. There subsist an internecine battle amongst the members of the family of late Sardar Bahadur Singh. The cause for the battle is, as in most cases property or assets; in this case, it is an immovable property being: No. 3, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Sardar Bahadur Singh's family comprised of himself, his wife, his three sons, namely, Sardar Satinder Singh, Sardar Tejinder Singh and Sardar Govinder Singh, and one daughter Smt. Hemant Pasrich. The defendant/ respondent, i.e., Sardar Govinder Singh, is one of the three sons of Sardar Bahadur Singh. It is not disputed that on 13.03.1971 a gift deed was executed by Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh whereby, 1/4th share in the suit property was gifted by her to the defendant/ respondent (i.e., Sardar Govinder Singh). Sardar Bahadur Singh expired in 1987, and it seems thereafter trouble brewed in the family. What is at the heart of the dispute, which the defendant/ respondent has with his other three siblings is the fact that each one of them lay claim to an equal share in the suit property. In other words the defendant/ respondent having got his 1/4th undivided share in the suit property by virtue of the aforementioned gift deed of 1971, the remaining portion ought to come in equal share to other three siblings. The defendant/respondent, however, by virtue of the oral family settlement of 10.03.1989 and thereafter the compromise purportedly arrived at between his mother Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh and himself lays claim to an additional 25% (1/4th ) undivided share in the suit property. Consequently, the defendant/ respondent claims that he has 50% (one-half) undivided share in the suit property as against 25% (1/4th) which he was gifted, and in respect of which there is no dispute, by his late father Sardar Bahadur Singh.

4. In the captioned application there are averments as to twists and turns which took place, which first culminated in an oral family settlement of 10.03.1989, and thereafter propelled the mother Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh to impugn the same.

4.1 The ground, however, for impugning the consent decree dated 25.11.1993 is that the defendant/ respondent had exercised "undue influence" and "coercion" which resulted in failure on the part of the applicant to exercise free will in arriving at a compromise, which she did, in the suit.

5. For the purposes of disposal of the application both counsels have agreed that if the legal issue with regard to maintainability is determined then either way it would decide whether any further steps are required to be taken in the instant suit. Therefore, the submission was that without touching upon the allegations and counter-allegations as to how the compromise was arrived at and thereafter impugned, it would be sufficient for the purposes of disposal of this application if the court were to determine whether the application is maintainable i