Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Ankush Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Gupta & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 2972 of 2015 & I.As.13372 of 2017, 1104 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anish Chawla, Advocate along with Plaintiff in person.
Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Advocates for D-1 to 4.
Mr Abhinav Sharma & Mr Ayush Srivastava, Advocates for D-5 & 6.
Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Mr. Umang Bhatia, Mr. Paramjeet Bhati, Advocates for D-7.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the binding nature of family settlements, the recognition of family settlements as a mechanism to maintain harmony and reduce litigation within families, and the enforceability of family settlements to achieve equitable distribution of familial assets.

Headnote:
Family Settlement - Family Dispute - MoU, Affidavit - [AIR 1976 SC 807, 2019 INSC 869] - The court discussed the family settlement through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and an affidavit, emphasizing the binding nature of family settlements and the importance of maintaining harmony and reducing litigation within families. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807 and Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors., 2019 INSC 869, highlighting the recognition and enforcement of family settlements to preserve familial bonds and achieve equitable distribution of familial assets.
Fact of the Case:
The suit arises from an intra-family dispute over a family settlement by means of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29th July, 2010. The Plaintiff seeks a decree, a declaration that the MoU is void, and possession of a share in a property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MoU and affidavit operate as a family settlement, binding on all parties. The Plaintiff had enjoyed benefits from the MoU and was only entitled to full implementation of the MoU. The court decreed the suit in terms of the family settlement/MoU, holding the Plaintiff as the absolute owner of certain properties and withdrawing rights in other properties.
Issues: The main issue was the validity and enforceability of the family settlement through the MoU and affidavit, and the Plaintiff's entitlement to the properties mentioned in the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of family settlements, the importance of maintaining familial bonds, and the equitable distribution of familial assets. It held that the Plaintiff, having enjoyed benefits from the MoU, was bound by its terms and entitled to full implementation of the settlement.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the family settlement/MoU, declaring the Plaintiff as the absolute owner of certain properties and withdrawing rights in other properties. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to withdraw their maintenance complaints and any other contrary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit which is of the year 2015 emanates from an intra- family dispute between the parties. The said family dispute culminated in a family settlement by means of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29th July, 2010 between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos 1 to 3. The agreement outlined in the MoU aimed to amicably settle the disputes among the family members by detailing the terms of the settlement, the responsibilities of each party involved, and the distribution of property to each party.

3. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff- Ankush Gupta seeking inter alia a decree of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with pendente lite interest, a declaration that the MoU dated 29th July, 2010 between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as void and possession of the one-third share in the property House No. F-29, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi.

4. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is encapsulated in the following table:

Defendant No.NameRelationship with Plaintiff/Role of the Defendant1Sh. Arun Kumar GuptaFather2Ms. Alka GuptaMother3Sh. Ankur GuptaBrother4Ms. Urmi GuptaSister-in-law (Bhabhi)5Sh. Vinay GuptaUncle (Chacha)6Ms. Anjali GuptaAunt by marriage (Chachi)7Sh. Arun AggarwalOccupant of Second Floor of House No. F-29, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi

5. I.A. 13372/2017 is an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 seeking a decree of the suit in terms of MoU dated 29th July, 2010. The submission of the said Defendants is that the Plaintiff has admitted the signatures on the MoU as also on the affidavit. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has also admitted that various registered gift deeds in terms of the MoU were executed in favour of the Plaintiff. In fact, in terms of the affidavit, the Plaintiff has also given up certain rights on the same date as the MoU was executed. Thus, it is the submission of the Defendants that the suit deserves to be decreed in terms of the MoU as also the affidavit which has been placed on record.

6. Per Contra, it is the stand of the Plaintiff that the admission of the signatures on the MoU and the affidavit would not make any difference as the execution of the MoU is itself not admitted. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has also contended that without admission of proper execution of the MoU, the mere acknowledgment of signatures to the MoU does not confer validity to the said MoU.

7. The Court has heard ld. Counsel for all the parties to the dispute at length and perused the record.

8. The Plaintiff himself is present in Court and his statement has been recorded today. The statement of the Plaintiff is set out below:

"Mr. Arun Gupta is my father. Mrs. Alka Gupta is my mother. Mr. Ankur Gupta is my elder brother. Ms. Nidhi Gupta is my younger sister.

The property F-29, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi is in the name of the partnership firm Arial Brothers. 50 percent possession in the property at D-86, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi is with me and the rest of the 50 percent possession is with my parents'. I run a shop at D-86, Hauz Khas, New Delhi by the name `Bath Interior and Decorators'. The shop has been in operation since 2007 under a different name and has been known as Bath Interior and Decorators since 2010. I have possession of Property No. B-140, DDA Shed Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, Delhi.

In respect of properties mentioned in paragraph (a) to (g) in the MoU except property mentioned at paragraph (d), I have the gift deeds executed in my favour which are also registered. My signatures appear on all pages of MoU which has been shown to me in the Court also but contents are disputed. My parents, my brother - Mr. Ankur Gupta and myself have signed the MoU.

Ms. Vasudha Gupta is my wife. Ms. Urmi Gupta is Mr. Ankur Gupta's wife. I submit that Mr. Ankur Gupta was not in the country when this document was executed.

The signature on the affidavit dated 29th July, 2010 are m