TILAK RAJ Vs. SATYAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for partition of the property bearing number 39, Rama Road, Industrial Area Scheme, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendants no.2 and 3. A Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Mr. Tilak Raj and Prithvi Manaktala, who are plaintiff and defendant no.2 respectively in this suit. The salient terms of the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement/ Settlement are as under:

(2.) AN irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed by defendant No. 2 for consideration, thereby divesting him of his rights in relation to the suit property as well as shares in a company, namely, Goralmal Hariram Private Ltd.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. S.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the defendant no.2 Prithvi Manaktala is that the compromise application IANo.11339/2012 (under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC) is not signed by defendant no.2 and, therefore, the compromise does not bind him. In my view, this contention is misconceived for the simple reason that under the Memorandum of Agreement, defendant no.2 has fully authorized the plaintiff to enter into any settlement with respect to the present suit and such agreements as and when entered into by the plaintiff is binding upon him. Since the application has been duly signed by the plaintiff, who has been duly authorized in this regard under the Memorandum of Agreement, it binds not only him, but also defendant no.2 Shri Prithvi Manaktala.