A compromise between parties cannot affect the rights of a third party who is not a party to the compromise.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J. - This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of partition of property No. D-2/7, Janak Puri, New Delhi measuring 351 sq. mtrs declaring the share of the plaintiff as one fourth share.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that late Shri Jagan Nath Sood became the owner of the freehold land measuring 351 sq mtrs bearing No. 7, Block D2, Janak Puri, New Delhi vide the conveyance deed dated 28.06.2002. On 23.03.2007 Shri Jagan Nath Sood died intestate leaving behind four legal heirs including defendant No.1 his son/Uma Pati Sood and another son Shri Rama Pati Sood and two daughters. His wife expired in 2007. On 23.02.2013 the two daughters relinquished their right, title and interest in favour of their brothers, namely, defendant No.1 Shri Uma Pati Sood and Shri Rama Pati Sood vide registered relinquishment deed. Rama Pati Sood at the relevant time was residing in USA and executed his General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mrs.Kiran Aggarwal and empowered her to sell and transfer his half undivided share in the property/land. The said power of Attorney holder on behalf of Rama Pati Sood executed a sale deed on 24.11.2015 in favour of Defendant No.2, M/s Jolly Brothers Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and defendant No.3. Hence, Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 became owners of 1/8th undivided share each in the said land. M/s Jolly Brothers Buildwell Pvt. Ltd executed a sale deed on 26.12.2018 and sold their undivided share in the land to Mr.Rakesh Katyal i.e. the plaintiff. Hence, Plaintiff claims one fourth undivided share in the land. The share of the parties is stated as follows:

Plaintiff

1/4th undivided share in the land

Defendant No.1

1/2nd undivided share in the land

Defendant No.2

1/8th undivided share in the land

Defendant No.3

1/8th undivided share in the land

3. Hence, the present suit for partition.

4. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are agreeable to a preliminary decree of partition defining the share of the respective parties, as noted above. Defendant no.1, however, has strong objections to the partition. In the written statement defendant No.1 does not dispute that defendant No.1 and Shri Rama Pati Sood became absolute owner of the said property. It is stated that Defendant No.1 had executed a Collaboration Agreement with defendant No.2 on 12.06.2015 for construction of the entire suit property. Under Clause 7 of the Agreement after completion of the construction work the ownership of the entire basement, second floor without roof rights, third floor with roof rights along with proportionate parking area etc. was to be owned by defendant No.2 and he was to pay a sum of Rs.2.25 crores to Shri Rama Pati Sood. Hence, it is claimed that defendant No.2 who had already executed the collaboration agreement with defendant No.1 could not have purchased any portion of the suit property. It is clear that all this happened behind the back of Shri Rama Pati Sood and against his interest.

5. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 filed a suit being CS No. 1053/2018 titled as Uma Pati Sood vs. M/s. CRS Infrastructure and Anr. in the district court. The aforesaid suit was filed for declaring the joint sale deed and also the collaboration agreement dated 12.06.2015 as null and void. The said suit was disposed of by passing a consent order dated 07.03.2019 whereby it is stated that defendant No. 2 agreed to complete the construction as per collaboration agreement. Hence, it is stated that defendant No.2 cannot seek partition of the property.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has stated that under the doctrine of lis pendens defendant No.2 has no right in the property in question as the suit that was filed in the District Court was pending and defendant No.2 remained bound by the outcome of the suit. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 397