GYAN DEVI Vs. LEELA DEVI ALIAS NARAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged the orders dated 8th January, 2Q07 and 13th March,2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the execution petition registered as Ex.P. No. 118/2005.

(2.) A suit was filed by the respondent No. I/decree holder for partition along with the relief of permanent injunction and declaration in respect of property No.B-134, Jamrudpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), which was registered as CS(OS) No. 1623/1995. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties and the legal representatives of late Shri Mam Raj Meena, who are the absolute owner of the suit property arrived at a settlement. The terms and conditions of the said settlement were put in writing under the settlement deed executed by the parties there to on 18th April, 2000. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at, a settlement deed was prepared and the said settlement deed was filed in the suit praying for passing a compromise decree in terms of the settlement. In terms thereof, a compromise decree was passed in the said suit being CS(OS) No.1623/1995 under judgment and decree dated 2nd August, 2000. The said compromise decree has become final and binding and has not been questioned.

(3.) It is recorded in the said decree that it is agreed to by the parties that the property in question be sold and the parties would receive their respective shares after the sale of the aforesaid property. Since it was not possible for the parties to find a prospective buyer, a prayer was made in the execution case for appointment of a Receiver, who would be entrusted with the duty to dispose of the property and to distribute the share to each parties in accordance with the decree. In terms of the prayer made, the learned Single Judge passed an order on 8th January, 2007 appointing a Receiver of the property in question directing him to find a buyer, to the satisfaction of all the three parties. It was also observed in the said order that the Receiver shall be permitted to sell the said property to the said buyer. The matter was again listed before the Court on 13th March, 2007 in view of the applications filed by the present appellant giving a proposal that the said applicant / appellant herein shall pay Rs.10 lacs to the respondent No.1 herein in terms of the deed of settlement so that the ancestral property may not be sold. The aforesaid prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge in view of which the present appeal is preferred.