Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Dhruv Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Aroon Mehta & Anr. - Respondents
CM(M) 786 of 2022
Decided On : 08-09-2022
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv., for the Petitioner; Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Kamakshi Gupta and, for the Respondents; Mr. Manas Agrawal, Advs., for the Respondents No. 1; Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Adv., for the Respondents No. 2
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Partition and Compensation Agreements - A compromise decree was issued conferring ground floor ownership to petitioner, with residency rights to a family member for life - Respondent's request to modify terms to impose a timeline for reconstruction was improperly granted by the court, which amended the decree without jurisdiction. (Paras 12-24)
(B) Modification of Decrees - Courts may not alter substantial terms of consent decrees unless there’s evidence of fraud or misunderstanding. (Paras 40-51)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondents were engaged in a legal partition of inherited family property, establishing ownership rights on a ground floor unit with specific residency rights articulated in a prior decree. The dispute arose over a modification request concerning reconstruction timelines—central to determining the future of the property.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the intent of parties regarding property reconstruction was to keep it open-ended, rejecting any imposition of a time constraint by the ADJ through modification of the consent decree.
Issues: The key legal issues were whether the court could modify the consent decree concerning property reconstruction timelines and if reconstruction was intended to be mandatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that 'whenever' indicated no time constraint yet signified only a potentiality, and altering terms without mutual consent constituted judicial overreach.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, allowing the petition.
JUDGMENT
1. Radhey Mohan Mehta and Usha Rani Mehta had three children, namely Aroon Mehta (Respondent 1), Karan Mehta and Kiran Kalra (Respondent 2). Dhruv Mehta (the petitioner) was the son of Karan Mehta and his wife Benu Mehta. The family tree, therefore, looks like this:
2. The petitioner Dhruv Mehta and his mother Benu Mehta instituted CS DJ 2143/2006 (later renumbered CS DJ 113/2016) against Usha Rani Mehta, Respondent 1 Aroon Mehta and Respondent 2 Kiran Kalra. The suit sought partition of property bearing A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi ('the suit property'). The suit property consisted of ground floor, first floor and second floor.
3. Cross objections were filed in the said suit by Kiran Kalra, which were registered as CS DJ 9758/2016.
4. The aforesaid two suits, i.e. CS DJ 113/2016 and CS DJ 9758/2016 (the cross objections filed by Kiran Kalra) were decreed by Mr. Mohinder Virat, the learned Additional District Judge ('the learned ADJ'), on 18th April 2019, on the basis of a compromise arrived at among the parties. The terms of the compromise were contained in the statements of the parties recorded on the said date. The order passed by the learned ADJ on 18th April 2019, and the statements of the petitioner Dhruv Mehta, Defendant 1 Usha Rani Mehta and Respondent 1 Aroon Mehta, as recorded on the same day, deserve to be reproduced, in full, thus:
'(a) Statement of Shri Dhruv Mehta Statement of Sh. Dhruv Mehta, S/o Late Sh. Karan Mehta, R/o A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi. On S.A. I am the plaintiff no. 1 in the present suit. I state that the suit filed by me may be decreed in terms of settlement arrived at between me and defendants:-
(i) I shall be the sole and the absolute owner of ground floor of property bearing no. A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
(ii) That during the life time of defendant no. 1, she shall have right to reside in the ground floor of the abovesaid property as per the current arrangement existing as of date.
(iii) I shall have no claim against the remaining property and considered defendant no. 2 as a sole and absolute owner of the rest of the property including terrace right. This is my true statement and I shall be bound by the same. RO & AC
(b) Statement of Ms. Usha Rani Mehta Statement of Ms. Usha Rani Mehta, W/o Late Sh. Radhey Mohan Mehta, R/o A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi. On S.A. I am the defendant no. 1 in the present suit. I state that the suit and counterclaim filed against me may be decreed in terms of settlement arrived at between me, plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and 3.
(i) The statement of plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and the counter claimant/defendant no. 3 have been read over and explained to me and I have no objection if the present suit and the counter claim of defendant no. 3 are disposed of as compromised in terms o the settlement terms stated in the statement of the plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 2 & 3, which may be read as part and parcel of my present statement. This is my true statement and I shall be bound by the same.
RO & AC
(c) Statement of Sh. Arun Mehta
Statement of Sh. Arun Mehta, S/o Late Sh. Radhey Mohan Mehta, R/o A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
On S.A.
I am the defendant no. 2 in the present suit. I state that the suit and counterclaim filed against me may be decreed in terms of settlement arrived at between me and plaintiff and defendant no. 3:-
(i) I have seen the statement of plaintiff and the counter claimant/defendant no. 3 and has no objection if the present suit and the counter claim of defendant no. 3 are disposed of as compromised. I further say that whenever the property bearing no. A-377, Defence Colony, New Delhi is being demolished and reconstructed, the share of the plaintiff shall be the same as it is today i.e. to the extent of entire ground floor of the aforesaid property/suit property.
(ii) I undertake to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (One Crores Thirty Lacs Rupees only) to the defendant no. 3 in a period of six months from today as full and final se
