Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Neelam – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Rekha Malik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. settlement agreement details. (Para 1) |
| 2. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. no question survives for adjudication. (Para 4) |
| 4. all applications disposed accordingly. (Para 5) |
(Video-Conferencing)
I.A. 12623/2021 (Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC) In CS(OS) 517/2019
1. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for disposing of CS(OS) 517/2019 on the basis of the Agreement at which the parties have arrived. The terms of the agreement, as set out in para 4 of the application, may be reproduced:
"4. The settlement/compromise arrived at between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, is without any force, coercion or undue influence and after fully understanding the prospects and consequences of the compromise, the terms whereof are as under:
a) The Plaintiff and the Defendants agree, admit acknowledge and confirm that the Share of Late Smt Sumitra Devi Malik will devolve upon the Plaintiff, namely Ms. Neelam, and the Plaintiff has one-third (33.33%) undivided share/right/title/interest in the suit property.
b) The Plaintiff and the Defendants agree, admit acknowledge and confirm that the Defendant No.1, namely Mrs. Chandra Rekha Malik, has
A settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is binding when entered voluntarily without coercion, leading to the disposal of the suit based on mutual acknowledgments of rights.
Settlement agreements reached through mediation are binding and enforceable, with clear obligations for parties regarding cooperation and compliance to terms without oral alterations.
The court upheld the legality of a settlement agreement between parties in a civil dispute, allowing the appeal to be resolved without further litigation.
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.
Enforcement of settlement agreements in property disputes.
In partition suits, a compromise among co-owners is valid even in the presence of third-party claims, provided it does not extinguish their rights.
A consent decree requires valid documentation for ownership claims; mere Power of Attorney is insufficient, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated to set aside court decisions.
A compromise between parties, if accepted by the court, is binding and results in the cessation of claims while outlining property rights and financial settlements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
