C. HARI SHANKAR
Tarun Nandwani – Appellant
Versus
Ram Swarup Nandwani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J. - CM aPPL. 17781/2022 in RFa 859/2010
1. This application, under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks decreeing of Suit 12/2008, earlier decreed in part in favour of the respondents by the impugned judgment dated 21st September, 2010 of the learned additional District Judge ('the learned aDJ'), forming subject matter of challenge in the appeal.
2. The learned Counsel submit that the dispute between the parties stands amicably resolved vide an oral Family Settlement dated 14th January, 2022, which stands reduced in writing vide Memorandum dated 14th February, 2022.
3. a copy of the said memorandum of the oral Family Settlement dated 14th January, 2022 is placed on record along with this application.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties also submit that Respondent 1 has also challenged the impugned judgment dated 21st September, 2010 by way of RFa 13/2011, which has been admitted and is pending before a coordinate Bench of this Court. However, it is submitted that Respondent 1, as the appellant in that appeal, has expired.
5. Mr. arun Batta who represents the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent 1 in the said proceedings submits that
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of an oral Family Settlement, reduced in writing, under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A family settlement can resolve disputes amicably and be deemed enforceable when reduced to writing and agreed upon by all parties involved.
Amicable family settlements can validly resolve disputes regarding property rights when formally agreed upon and will be recognized by the court as lawful.
The validity and lawfulness of a Memorandum of Family Settlement in resolving property disputes.
The family settlement, though unregistered, operated as estoppel against the signatories and partitioned the suit properties among the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff was estopped from....
The court has the authority to pass a decree in terms of a compromise deed under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and can order the refund of court fees in accordance wit....
Specific remedies are available to challenge a decree, and the petitioner cannot bypass such remedies and invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The court has the discretion to permit parties to settle their disputes in the interest of justice, and a compromise/settlement agreement can be allowed if found to be legal.
The petitioner must follow statutory remedies for challenging an ex parte decree, bypassing established procedures is impermissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.