PRAMOD KHANNA Vs. SUBODH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals are directed against the Impugned Order dated 10th February, 2010 passed in IA No. 9765/2008 in CS (OS) No. 2203/2006 whereby this Application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the Plaint was partly allowed.

(2.) The Appellants/Plaintiffs Shri Pramod Khanna and his wife Smt. Kiran B. Khanna filed a Civil Suit against the Respondents/Defendants Sh. Subodh Khanna and his wife Smt. Ruby Khanna for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of property No. W-105, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 are brothers and since there were disputes as regards the family owned properties in Delhi and NCR a family settlement was arrived at with the help of mediators. As per the Plaint the Respondents were to give certain sum of money to the Appellants in addition to their share of the properties, however, the entire amount was not given and thus, the Respondents failed to complete their obligation under the purported family settlement. On the Respondents seeking a mutation of the suit property the Appellants objected. As per the Respondents the negotiations came to an end on 24th March, 2006 in terms of an oral settlement which was subsequently reduced into a written family settlement on 4th April, 2006. The Appellants allege that the original copy of the settlement which was with the conciliators, who in connivance with the Respondents have changed the MOU whereas as per the Respondents the settlement was prepared by the legal advisors of the Appellants and as a memorandum of family settlement does not require registration, the same was not got registered.

(3.) By way of the amendment Application the Appellants sought to plead that the parties had signed certain undated letters and documents as the same were said to be required for transfer of the property subsequently in their names and this was done to avoid unnecessary harassment at the hands of either party for no objection certificates etc. The signatures of parties were also taken on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with an understanding that the same related to joint properties of the parties and the Respondents were to pay '7.51 crores to the Appellants as per the MOU. After the signing of the MOU, the parties were required to sign on two sets of non-judicial stamp papers. An MOU was signed by the Appellant No. 1 and his son, however, subsequently when the Appellant No. 2 went to sign the same, she realized that the same was not the original MOU and hence did not sign the same. It is for this reason the Application for amendment was necessitated.