SANTOSH PURI Vs. ANIL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of money. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of Property No. A-2/150 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The aforesaid property was purchased by late Shri Raj Kumar Puri, husband of the plaintiff, who expired on 19.06.1986, leaving the plaintiff, two daughters, namely, Dr. Rita Lingam and Dr. Reena Mohindra and one son defendant No. 1 Anil Puri as his legal heirs. Defendant No. 1 and the daughters of the plaintiff relinquished their share in the suit property in her favour, as a result of which she became its absolute owner. It is alleged that since the defendants had been harassing the plaintiff, she left for Malaysia on 14.11.2001 to stay with her daughter Rita Lingam, but the misbehaviour of the defendants persisted even after the plaintiff returned from Malaysia. She, therefore, left for USA on 01.07.2003 to live with her younger daughter Reena Mohindra and her family. When she returned to India, after five years, she found that the defendants had trespassed into several portions of the property and had also rented out two portions of the said property. Defendant No. 1 filed suit No. 345 of 2008, seeking a decree for cancellation of the relinquishment deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) A perusal of the consent judgment dated 29.05.2010 discloses the following terms agreed between the parties before Mediation Cell:-

(3.) Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, to the extent it is relevant, provides that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, the Court shall order such agreement or compromise to be recorded, and shall pass a decree is accordance therewith. Rule 3A provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree was based, was not lawful.