JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Plaintiff and Defendants are the legal heirs of Late Shri Narendra Prakash Kaushik. Plaintiff- Smt. Mahima Kaushik is the daughter, Defendant No.1 - Mrs. Neera Kaushik is the wife and Defendant No.2 – Mr. Manu Kaushik is the son of Late Shri Narendra Prakash Kaushik. The Plaintiff seeks partition of the movable and immovable assets of the deceased father and seeks appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition. Late Shri Narendra Prakash Kaushik is stated to have passed away on 11th February, 2023.

3. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in which it is admitted that the father had died intestate. The said extract from the written statement is set out below:

“3. The Answering Defendants bonafidely state and submit that Late Shri Narendra Prakash Kaushik had passed away Intestate on 11.02.2023 at New Delhi.

The Answering Defendants; Mrs. Neera Kaushik (Wife) & Mr. Manu Kaushik (Son) and the Plaintiff (Daughter), are the Sole Surviving Class-I Legal Heirs of Late Shri Narendra Prakash Kaushik, as prescribed under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”

4. In view of the above admission in the written statement, a preliminary decree was passed vide order dated 14th February, 2024 declaring each of the legal heirs as 1/3rd owner of the movable and immovable assets of the deceased.

5. After the preliminary decree was passed on 14th February, 2024, the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner for exploring the possibility of division of the property by metes or bounds or by sale. The directions given on the said order are set out below:

“5. Insofar as the immovable property is concerned, the same would have to be sold/divided by metes and bounds. For the said purpose, Mr. Rohan Anand, Advocate (M: 9968791199) is appointed as the Local Commissioner. The fee of the Local Commissioner is currently fixed at Rs.1.05 lakhs, Rs.35,000/- to be paid by each parties. Let the Local Commissioner visit the property and file a report as to whether it is divisible by metes and bounds or not.

6. Insofar as the movable assets are concerned, description of the same is contained in paragraph 4 of the Plaint, as also in the written statement. The same may be resolved as mutually agreed between the parties. If it is not possible, parties may use the services of the Local Commissioner.”

6. The Local Commissioner’s report was received by the Court. The said report clearly stated that partition by metes and bounds is a possibility. However, on 13th May, 2024, after interacting with the parties it appeared to the Court that the parties could resolve their disputes. The Court then recorded as under:

“2.The parties have brought their valuations in terms of order dated 12th March, 2024 and the Court has also perused the report of the Local Commissioner. The division of the property by metes and bounds is a possibility as per the Local Commissioner’s report.

3. However, after interacting with all the three parties i.e., the Defendants who are virtually present and the Plaintiff who is present in Court physically, it appears that the Defendants and the Plaintiff can resolve the disputes in a manner wherein the mother i.e., Defendant No.1 is permitted to relinquish her share in favour of her son- Mr. Manu Kaushik i.e., Defendant No.2 and the same can be done by the sister i.e., the Plaintiff for a settlement amount being given to her by the Defendants.

4. The Defendants are willing to pay a sum of Rs.6.68 crores to the Plaintiff, as a lump sum payment, for the above purpose. The Plaintiff is agreeable to the said amount.

5. Let the parties draw up the complete terms of the settlement and file the same before the Court.

6. In view thereof, the mother is permitted to relinquish/gift her share to the son in modification of the status quo order which has already been granted.”

7. Today, the parties who are present submit that instead of a sum of Rs