AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present suit for partition has been filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Batra against his brother Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra, his sister Ms. Veena Batra and Mrs. Urmil Batra, wife of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are children of Late Shri Chaman Lal Batra and his wife Late Smt. Krishnawanti. They had seven children, out of whom three are parties to the suit. The remaining four sisters, as per the parties herein, do not claim any rights in the suit properties.
The suit was initially filed seeking partition of one property being Plot No.14, Block 3B, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060 admeasuring approximately 906.66 Sq. Yards (hereinafter, Property No.1) as per the plaint. According to the Plaintiff, he owns 1/3rd share in the said property and remaining 2/3rd shares are owned by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, 1/3rd each.
The prayer in the suit is for partitioning the said Rajinder Nagar property. In the suit, the Defendant No.1 after being served filed his counter claim/written statement. In the said written statement/counter claim, the Defendant No.1 sought partition of three further properties in Mumbai as under:
•Flat Nos.10 & 11, 4th Floor, Shashidhar, Dr. Rajabali Patel Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400026 (hereinafter, Property No.2)
•Flat No.I-14, 156, Tardeo Main Road, Mumbai-400034. (commercial space) (hereinafter, Property No.3)
In the written statement, though there are other properties, which are mentioned, the partition of none of those properties is insisted upon as part of this suit/written statement/counter claim. Thus, the present suit and the counterclaim are restricted to the properties mentioned above i.e., Property No.1, Property No.2 and Property No.3. In respect of other properties, which may be owned by the family members, the parties do not seek partition and this shall be the full and final settlement of all the disputes between the parties in respect of the self-acquired assets of their parents and any of their businesses. The suit and the counterclaim have, thus, been restricted to the above-mentioned three properties.
The matter was taken up on 8th May, 2024 and Mr. Jay Savla, Senior Counsel was appointed as the Mediator in the matter. Ld. Mediator held various sessions with the parties and today, at the request of the parties as also the ld. Mediator, the matter was taken up in the chamber as well.
After some discussions, with the assistance of the ld. Mediator as also their respective counsels, the parties have agreed to finally resolve their disputes on the following terms and conditions.
1/3rd share of Mr. Raj Kumar Batra in respect of Rajinder Nagar property i.e., Property No.1 has been agreed to be vested with Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra/Mrs. Urmil Batra or their nominee. The said vesting shall be subject to payment of Rs.8.5 crores by Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra to his brother Mr. Raj Kumar Batra by 31st July, 2025.
The parties have agreed that the modalities of the said vesting and payments shall be discussed and drawn up in a final settlement agreement.
In addition, Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra/Mrs. Urmil Batra also have agreed that both Flat Nos.10 & 11, 4th Floor, Shashidhar, Dr. Rajabali Patel Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400026 shall vest in the Plaintiff/his nominee. Upon the finalisation of this settlement, therefore, the Plaintiff/his nominee shall be the exclusive owner of both Flat No.10 & 11 i.e. Property No.2 as also the commercial property i.e. Property No.3 mentioned above i.e. the office space in Mumbai.
Upon the payment being received, the Plaintiff shall withdraw his objections in the probate petition pending in the Gurgaon Civil Court wherein the Defendant No.1- Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra has sought probate of the last Will dated 9th October, 2006 and testament of Late Shri Chaman Lal Batra, which is in favour of the son of Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra namely Mr. Gopal Batra. The Plaintiff shall not press any of his objections in respect of the said Will.
Under the said Will of Late Shri C.L. Batra, 40% of the rental income is to be paid to Mr. Raj Kumar Batra till Mr. Gopal Batra turns the age of 50. It is agreed that the said arrangement shall continue and Mr. Raj Kumar Batra or his nominee shall receive 40% of the rental income till 30th April, 2032 when Mr. Gopal Batra turns 50 irrespective of whether Mr. Raj Kumar Batra is alive or not.
The expenses for the vesting of the rights in the Delhi property in favour of Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra, if any, shall be exclusively borne by Defendant No.1 Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra/Mrs. Urmil Batra or their nominee. The expenses for vesting of the two Mumbai properties shall be borne by the Plaintiff - Mr. Raj Kumar Batra or his nominee. The entire transfer/relinquishment/exchange shall be completed on or before 31st July 2025.
Insofar the mutation/allotment of these properties in the respective names as per the settlement is concerned, all the parties have undertaken to cooperate with each other for execution of relevant documents, even if it means that the parties may have to travel between Delhi and Mumbai on multiple occasions. Expenses for such travels shall be borne by the respective parties themselves.
Insofar as the Rajinder Nagar property is concerned, the vesting of the property of Mr. Raj Kumar Batra’s share in favour of Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra/Mrs. Urmil Batra is on `as is’ basis. Any future expenses qua the said property, insofar as the share of Mr. Raj Kumar Batra is concerned, would be the responsibility of Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra/Mrs. Urmil Batra or their nominee.
All the dues of Flat Nos. 10 and 11 of Mumbai property i.e. Property No.2 shall be the liability of Mr. Raj Kumar Batra.
Any violation of these conditions would also be treated as contempt of the orders of this Court.
Ms. Veena Batra i.e. Defendant No.2 is agreeable to the aforesaid agreement and has no objection to the vesting of the properties in favour of her brothers and their families as indicated above.
Broad consent terms have been recorded above as agreed between the parties. Let the detailed Settlement Agreement/Family Settlement be placed on record by the next date of hearing.
The parties i.e. Mr. Raj Kumar Batra (Plaintiff), Mr. Gulshan Kumar Batra (Defendant No.1), Ms. Veena Batra (Defendant No.2), Mrs. Urmila Batra (Defendant No.3), Ms. Ekta Rajkumar Batra (daughter of Plaintiff), Mr. Gopal Batra (son of Defendant No.1) are physically present and the settlement terms have been dictated in their presence. Defendant No.4 is the wife of the Plaintiff, who is duly represented by her husband and her daughter.
The detailed terms of settlement, if entered into, may be placed before the Court by the next date of hearing.
Full court fee is directed to be refunded to the Plaintiff. In view of the fact that the disputes have been amicably settled through mediation between the parties, full court fee is refunded to the Plaintiff, through Counsel in terms of the judgement in Nutan Batra v. Buniyaad Builders [(2018) 255 DLT 696].
The parties have expressed their gratitude to the services of the ld. Mediator – Mr Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate, who has been kind enough to spend substantial amount of time with the parties for attempting the resolution.
List before the Court on 29th August, 2024.
The date of 5th July, 2024 before the Joint Registrar stands cancelled for receiving detailed agreement of settlement, if any.
The suit is decreed in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.