$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st January, 2026 + CS(OS) 278/2018, I.A. 7760/2018, I.A. 14223/2022 & I.A. 15479/2022 MANISH AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Surender Gupta, Adv. along with Plaintiff Mr. Manish Aggarwal in person. Mob: 9811196644 Email: surendergupta.adv@gmail.com versus RAM NARAYAN PANDEY & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Satyavan Kudalwal and Mr. Aakash Kudalwal, Advs. for D-7(LRs) Defendant No. 1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL): 1. Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025, has been received from the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs had purchased the plot of land measuring 450 sq. yards, in Khasra No. 1614/1195/558, located in the Village of Bahapur, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi. 3. He submits that the plaintiffs had purchased the said land in question from the original owner, i.e., Legal Representatives (“LRs”) of Sh. Ratan Lal Gupta. 4. He further submits that out of the 450 sq. yards of the land in question, which was purchased by the plaintiffs, only 270 sq. yards had been handed over to the plaintiffs. 5. Thus, by way of the present suit, the plaintiffs had sought for the remaining 180 sq. yards of the land in question. 6. It is submitted that the remaining land was in the possession of defendant nos. 1 to 7, which was part of the land measuring 900 sq. yards, in possession of defendant no. 1. 7. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 29th March, 2022, wherein, defendant nos. 2 to 7, were transposed as plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 7, who was transposed as plaintiff vide order dated 29th March, 2022, submits that defendant no. 7 was not present at the time of the settlement in question between the parties, and that his rights have been compromised. He, thus, submits that he wishes to continue with the suit. 9. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 30th September, 2019, wherein, it is recorded as follows: “xxx xxx xxx Written statement to the suit of plaintiffs not filed by defendant No.7 till date. Learned counsel for defendant No.7 submits that defendant No.7 does not wish to file separate written statement and affidavit for admission/denial of documents and he adopts the same written statement and affidavit for admission/denial of documents as already filed by defendant No.2 to 6. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. By referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant no. 7 had not filed any written statement or affidavit of admission/denial of documents, and he had adopted the written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents, as already filed by defendant nos. 2 to 6. 11. He, thus, submits that when defendant nos. 2 to 6 are party to the Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025 duly executed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, defendant no. 7 cannot, at this stage, raise any dispute. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that land measuring 180 sq. yards, has already been handed over to the plaintiffs, by defendant no. 1. Since the plaintiffs have now got possession of their full land measuring 450 sq. yards, the plaintiffs, in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025, do not wish to continue with the present suit. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 7 submits that defendant no. 7 has a share of 150 sq. yards in the land in question, and that since the whole land measuring 630 sq. yards, was in possession of defendant no. 1, his share of 150 sq. yards, ought to be given to him. He submits that the present suit is essentially filed for partition of the Joint Family Property. 14. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the plaintiffs have already received the possession of the full land claimed by the plaintiffs, i.e., 450 sq. yards, as the land measuring 180 sq. yards has already been handed over by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiffs. 15. The land measuring approximately 630 sq. yards was in possession of the defendant no. 1, out of which, he has handed over 180 sq. yards to the plaintiffs. 16. The defendant no. 7 is claiming 150 sq. yards out of the said land, which is under possession of defendant no. 1. After handing over land measuring 180 sq. yards, the defendant no. 1 is in possession of 450 sq. yards of the land in question. However, defendant no. 1, who appears in person, denies any right of defendant no. 7 over the land under his possession. 17. Accordingly, in case, the defendant no. 7 has any claim with regard to his share of 150 sq. yards, out of the 450 sq. yards now in possession of defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 7 is free to seek his remedies, in accordance with law, in order to establish his claim to the aforesaid extent. 18. Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025, is before this Court, as received from the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The said Settlement Agreement is between Shri Manish Aggarwal, Smt. Pooja Aggarwal, Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal, i.e., original plaintiffs, on the one hand and Shri Ram Narayan Pandey, i.e., defendant no. 1 and Shri Pawan Kumar, Shri Naresh Kumar, Smt. Shakti, Shri Nishant and Shri Neeraj Vats, i.e., defendant nos. 2 to 6/their legal heirs, on the other hand. 19. The terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated 24th September, 2025, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx 20. This Court notes the submission of learned counsel appearing for the original plaintiffs that in view of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, the plaintiffs do not wish to continue with the suit, any further, and thus, wish to withdraw the present suit. 21. This Court also notes the submission made on behalf of defendant no. 7 that since by way of the present suit, the original plaintiffs had also prayed for partition of the joint family property, therefore, till the joint family property is partitioned by metes and bounds, such Settlement Agreement could not have been entered into. Furthermore, the right of defendant no. 7 is still to be adjudicated. 22. On the other hand, it is the stand of defendant no. 1, who is present in Court, that defendant no. 1 and his family, have been in possession of the suit property since the last 70 years. 23. Accordingly, it is clear that defendant no. 7 would have to establish his rights against defendant no. 1, and therefore, defendant no. 7 cannot seek any partition, till he establishes his right, title and interest over the land, which is under possession of defendant no. 1. 24. Needless to state that before a party claims partition over any property, the said party has to establish its right, title and interest over the said property. In the present case, the right, title and interest of defendant no. 7 over the suit land, is yet to be adjudicated. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025 having been entered between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 6/their LRs. 26. This Court notes the statement made on behalf of the parties to the Settlement Agreement that the said settlement has been made amicably and out of their own free will. 27. Thus, Settlement Agreement has been agreed to without any fear or coercion and the parties appear to have entered into the Settlement Agreement on their own volition. 28. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the settlement as arrived at between the parties, follows the due procedure and meets the essentials specified in Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The parties are held bound by the Settlement Agreement dated 24th September, 2025. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiffs are allowed to withdraw the present suit, in terms of the Settlement Agreement, as noted hereinabove. 30. As regards defendant no. 7, the defendant no. 7 is granted liberty to seek his remedies, in accordance with law, to establish his right over the suit land and seek partition, if so advised. 31. With the aforesaid directions, the present suit, is dismissed, as withdrawn. The pending applications are also disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J JANUARY 21, 2026/SK CS(OS) 278/2018 Page 1 of 8