KIRPAL KAUR ANO ANR. versus V.M. SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 30-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

KIRPAL KAUR ANO ANR. 
A 
v. 
V.M. SINGH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 30, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Interlocutory application-In appeal arising out of decision based on 
settlement, Supreme Court, while disposing of appeal, giving certain 
directions-Since directions not complied with, on an IA having been filed, C 
applicant permitted to deposit money in Court-On contest by other party, 
applicant seeking to withdraw said IA-The said other party resisting 
withdrawal of IA, stating that incorrect and defamatory a/legations were 
made therein·-Held: In the interlocutory applications, Court is concerned 
only with regard to the question whether permission should be accorded to 
applicant to deposit the amount pursuant to an earlier order-Since applicant D 
has expressed his intention to withdraw the said IA, interest of justice would 
be sub-served if applicant is permitted to withdraw his IA-/As having become 
infructuous are rejected-Jn the instant proceedings, Court need not go into 
correctness or otherwise of allegations made by applicant in /Alaffidavit-
lf any person is aggrieved by the said statement of the applicant he may raise E 
such contention in appropriate proceedings. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 
6327 of2005. 
AND 
I.A. No. 17 in I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2003 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in FAO{OS] No. 162 of2000. 
WITH 
I.A. No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of2005. 
AND 
I.A. No. 18 in I.A. No. 16 in C.A. No. 6326 of 2005. 
615 
F 
G 
H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R 
A 
Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants. 
B 
K.L. Janjani, Prashant Kumar, Manik Karanjawala, Arvind Minocha and 
G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents. 
Respondent-in-person. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
I. Two suits of partition, one filed in the year 1975 andthe other in the 
C year 1989 were subject matter of the consent decree passed in or about April 
1993. A deed of family settlement was executed between the parties to the 
suit. Applicant-Respondent herein was a beneficiary of the said family 
settlement. He had been acting on behalf of the appellants as their assignee. 
Appeals preferred against the said judgments and decrees were dismissed· by 
the High Court by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 
D 19.05.2000. Intra-court appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed by 
a Division Bench of the said Court by a common judgment and order dated 
--\ 
04.03.2003. Appellants ~erein filed applications for grant of special leave 
).. 
E 
F 
G 
thereagainst before this Court. The said appeals by grant of special leave 
have been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 7.10. 2005 directing : 
"However, having regard to the facts that the disputes between the 
members of one family which are sought to be solved leaving no _ 
outstanding area, we pass the further direction that in the event KK 
and Guneeta execute the General Power of Attorney in terms of the 
first agreement in favour of VMS, VMS will pay the balance amount 
due to KK and Guneeta in terms of the agreement. Such execution of 
the General Power of Attorney shall be within a period of our weeks 
from date the entire balance of amount must be paid within a period 
of four weeks thereafter. 
As far as AA is concerned, subject to her executing the necessary 
conveyance in respect of the 44 acres of land mentioned in clause -
e of the second agreement in favour of VMS, VMS will pay the 
balance amount payable to AA in terms of the second agreement. 
Such conveyance must be executed within a period of four weeks from 
date and the payment must be made within four weeks thereafter." 
2. Allegedly, the said directions were not carried out. A contempt 
H petition was filed by Respondent No. l which was dismissed. Applicant 
l--
KIRPALKAURv. V.M.SINGH 
617 
herein, viz., Shri V.M. Singh (original first respondent), however, filed an A 
application for grant of permission to deposit the amount in question before 
this Court, despite the fact that no Power of Attorney had been executed in 
his favour pursuant to the said direction of this Court. By an order dated 
28.07.2006, the applicant was permitted to deposit the money as ordered in 
the Civil Appeal with the Registrar General of this Court. However, by an 
order dated 06.09.2006, he was permitted to deposit bank draft after rectifying B 
the defect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.