$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 19^th February, 2024 + CS(OS) 2972/2015 & I.As.13372/2017, 1104/2023 ANKUSH GUPTA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Anish Chawla, Advocate along with Plaintiff in person. (M-

9953541910)

versus ARUN KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Advocates for D-1 to 4 (M-

9891105069).

Mr Abhinav Sharma & Mr Ayush Srivastava, Advs. for D-5 & 6 (M-

9557423051)

Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Mr. Umang Bhatia, Mr. Paramjeet Bhati, Advs. for D-7.

(M- 9810383816)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

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 29^th 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 2972/2015 Page 1 of 18 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 29^th 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:

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 29^th July, 2010. The submission of the said Defendants is that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 2972/2015 Page 2 of 18 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 operatio