A suit for establishing a subsequent oral family settlement following a previous court decree raises issues of maintainability under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly whether such matters require a separate suit or fall within the scope of execution proceedings.

1. Let the plaint be registered as suit.

CS(OS) 356/2026 & I.A. 10966/2026

2. Issue summons to the defendants. Summons is accepted by learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1 and 2, at the outset, submits that there is already an execution proceeding pending with respect to an earlier decree dated 08th October, 2025, in CS(OS) 181/2010, having been passed between the same parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1 and 2 draws the attention of this Court to Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), to submit that all the objections can be taken by the plaintiff before the Executing Court, and that a separate suit shall not be maintainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the earlier decree of 08th October, 2015 was never implemented.

6. He further submits that the plaintiff has been in possession of one of the suit properties, i.e., property bearing No. K-34, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, since the year 1981, and the same was further agreed upon by way of the mutual oral family settlement.

7. It is further submitted that though he took all these objections in Execution Petition No. 493/2022, before the Executing Court, however, the counsels for the defendants appearing before the Executing Court, as well as the Executing Court itself, were of the view that any subsequent oral family settlement would not be a subject matter of adjudication before the Executing Court.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the Executing Court can decide questions only with respect to the decree, in relation to which, execution is being sought from the said Executive Court. However, any subsequent development in the matter, like oral settlement, as is pleaded by the plaintiff, would have to be pleaded and established by way of a separate suit. He, thus, submits that the present suit has been filed.

9. In response, learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1 and 2 relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma and Others , (2020) 9 SCC 1, and in particular relies upon Para 135 of the said judgment, to submit that oral family settlement cannot be accepted, especially, in cases where there already exists a decree.

10. Rebutting the aforesaid learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kale and Others Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others , (1976) 3 SCC 119, and particularly on Para 10, to submit that even oral family settlements are accepted by the Supreme Court in relevant cases.

11. The matter requires consideration.

12. Let written statements be filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2, within thirty (30) days, from today.

13. Issue summons to the defendant nos. 3 to 7, through all permissible modes. The summons shall state that the written statement(s) shall be filed by the defendants, within thirty (30) days, from the date of receipt of summons.

14. Along with the written statement(s), the defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which, the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

15. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication(s), if any, within thirty (30) days, from the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of defendants, be filed by the plaintiff, without which, replication(s) shall not