The sanctity of family settlements and the principle that a party who has taken advantage under a family settlement cannot later seek its revocation.

JUDGMENT :

I.A 14004/2018 [by defendant No.4 under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the CPC for transposition as plaintiff] and I.A. 14645/2018 [by defendant No.4 under Section 151 of the CPC for recall of settlement] in CS(OS) 1394/2015.

1. The defendant No. 4, Ms. Geeta Budhiraja, has filed these applications for transposition as a plaintiff in the suit, and for setting aside a mediated settlement dated 12.01.2016.

2. The suit was instituted by Smt. Daya Rani, mother of the defendants, on 12.05.2015. She sought partition of certain properties owned by her late husband.

3. The parties were referred to mediation by an order dated 16.10.2015, and entered into the settlement agreement on 12.01.2016. The original plaintiff was described as the first party, and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were described as the second party to the fifth party, respectively. The settlement agreement was signed by all of them, as well as by their counsel. It records that the parties arrived at an amicable resolution of their differences after seven sittings with the mediator. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement by the order of this Court dated 15.01.2016.

4. The plaintiff has since died on 10.05.2018. Defendant No. 4 now seeks transposition as plaintiff, and revocation of the settlement on the contention that the settlement was predicated upon defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (being the sons of the original plaintiff) taking good care of their mother, which they failed to do. She submits that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were granted a disproportionate share of the suit properties in the settlement, in consideration of their assurance that they would look after their mother, and be responsible for her expenses.

5. In support of these applications, Mr. Ashish Kapur, learned counsel for defendant No.4, draws my attention to the following clauses of the settlement agreement:-

“(d) The second and third party undertake to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month (7,500/- each) to the first party by depositing the same each month in her bank account bearing no. 0280 2191 002911 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hudson Line Branch, Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 11009 on or before 10th day of each English Calendar month and the first party shall be free to utilize it as per her free will. The second and third party will be responsible to take care of all hospitalization needs and bills, food etc of the first party. The first party shall have right to reside in the ground floor or the first floor of the property bearing No.2664, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and the second and third party undertake not to sell or transfer the ground and first floor of the said property during the lifetime of the first party, however, they shall be free to deal with the second floor and terrace.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

(p) All the defendants shall take good care of their mother (the plaintiff) and shall make best endeavor to maintain harmonious relations amongst themselves and agree to remain bound by this settlement.”

6. Mr. Kapur points out that, even during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, she was constrained to file I.A. 9296/2016, seeking revocation of the settlement, on the ground that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not acted in compliance with their obligations to maintain the plaintiff. He drew my attention to the orders passed by the Court on this application to submit that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into the settlement agreement fraudulently, rendering it liable to be cancelled and revoked.

7. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the defendant No.4/applicant is not entitled to the relief’s sought in these applications.

8. At the outset, the application for revocation of the compromise has been made by defendant No.4, only after the death of the original plaintiff. It was only the mother who filed the application for revocation of the compromise during her lifetime. Even on that application, the Court noted (in the order dated 03.08.2016