S IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RFA 33712007 AT NEW DELHI RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA ..... Appellant ' Through : Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, Mr. Nalin ' Sangal, Ms. Bhakti, Advs. .' versus SATISH CHANDER SHARMA &ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Amit Kaushal, Adv. for R-2, 4 &5 COIUTM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. TITAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDTIARTH MRIDUL 'vVhether reporters of local papers may be allowed 1. Q"t .f} 2. 3. the Digest? S*^-7 o/o to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? rWhether the judgment should be reported in ORDER ' L6.0s.2008 T.S. THAKUR. I(Oral).: This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of FIat No. 106, Pocket-Dl5, Sector-VII, Rohini, New Delhi filed against the appellant by respondent No.L. While decreeing the suit, the trial CourL has held the plaintiff-respondent No.L entitled to 1/6th share in the said properby. Aggrreved the appellant has questioned the correctness of the said decree in the present appeal. 2. The parties have, d.uring the pendency of the appeal, amicably settled the dispute as is evident from a memorandum of mutual settiement filed by them along with a joint application moved under Order.23 Rule'3 ttid with Section 151 of the CPC. The terms of the ,"tfiEn"nt are as under: (i) The Appellant of Regular First Appeal No. 33712007 Shri Ramesh Chander, has agreed to pay to his younger brother, Shri *, I --y' \ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified L --{'Y ,) Satish Chandra Sharma, by Demand Draft Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) payable at NOIDA in full and final settlement of his claim in the estate of his father late Shri Agam Ram Sharma, and Shri Satish Chandra Sharma will give up his share in the properby of his father and admit Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma as owner thereof; namely Flat No. 106, Sector \I|I, Rohini, New Delhi. (ii)That the other respondents, namely, Mrs. Kanta Kukreti, Smt. Sheela Kotnala, Smt. Jyoti Bhatt and Smt. Vimla Gaur are married and happily settled in their respective families and, therefore, d.o not want to claim any interest in the estate of their father Shri Agam Ram Sharma provided Shri Ramesh Chander sharma pays to shri satish chander Sharma as per para (L). They have no objection to admit Shri Ramesh Chande Sharma as the ornmer of the propgrby in dispute left by their father subject to the pa5rment as above; (iii)That the Appellant and the Respondents agree to abide by the Settlement as recorded in this Memo of Settlement and cooperate for its implementation in letter and spirit; and (iv)That the Appellant and the Respondents have also agreed to make a joint application before the Hon. Delhi High Court in the above Regular First Appeat No. 337 of 2007 for decision in appeal in terms of this Settlement. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in the light of the settlement aforementioned, nothing really survives for consideration in this appeal which can be disposed of on the terms extracted above. We see no reason to decline that prayer. 4. We accordingly dispose of the suit as also the present appeal in terms of the settlement entered into between the parties. Paras L to 4 ^'.t \ -T.T of the settlement deed extracted above shall form part of the decree. Parties are lefL to bear their own costs. tl *^.-t T.S. THAKUR,J ,ll i-4 SIPDIAARTH iVIRIDUL, J MAY ].6, 2OOB pk :{' t' 'f F- $ JT *- <' .6, @ i.6 * a IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA 337/2007 RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr, Shivsant Singh, Advocate. VCTSUS SATISH CHANDER SHARMA &ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo. CORAM: tioN'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA ORDER 08.LL.201L CM No.16313/2O11 (for directions) This application has been filed by the appellant seeking time for registration of the compromise decree dated 16.05.2008 passed by this Court. The application has been necessitated on account of the letters of the DDA, as per which, unless the decree is registered, the a\ DDA cannot act upon the compromise dated 16.05.2008. In my opinion, DDA has unnecessarily directed registration of the compromise judgment and decree. The compromise judgment and decree is not reQistrable by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 . In fact, the Supreme CourL in the case of RFA 337/2007 Page No,I of 2 -1 % \ ..4 J\ S- -- .Ft-\, Amteshwar Anand vs, virender Mohan singh, & ors; 2006(I) SCC 748 has gone to the extent of saying that even if a property was not originally the subject matter of the suit but it becomes the subject matter of the suit by virtue of the compromise, then even such a decree does not require registration because the properties then become the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with the directions - - that the DDA is directed not to insist upon registration of the compromise judgment and decree of this Court dated L6.05.2008, in \. view of the aforesaid observations. Application stands disPosed of. !tl^^r@ VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J NOVEMBER 08, 2011 vk \ A a RFA 337/2007 Page No.2 of 2