http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6327 of 2005

PETITIONER: Kirpal Kaur & Anr

RESPONDENT: V.M. Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

I.A. NO. 16 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6327 OF 2005  AND I.A. NO.17 IN I.A. NO. 16 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6327 OF 2005 W I T H I.A. No.16  IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6326 of 2005 AND I.A. NO. 18 IN I.A. NO. 16 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6326 OF 2005   

1.      Two suits of partition, one filed in the year 1975 and the other in the  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 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 herein filed applications for grant of  special leave 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 \026 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 which was dismissed.  Applicant  herein, viz., Shri V.M. Singh (original first respondent), however, filed an  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 the defects pointed out by the Registry.   3.      An application being I.A. No. 18 had been filed by Shri Shri  Anandamayee Sangha for permission to file an application for impleadment  as a party respondent in I.A. No. 16 in C.A. No. 6327 of 2005.  The said  permission was accorded by this Court by an order dated 25.09.2006.  The  application filed by the applicant-respondent for depositing the amount in  question has been opposed by the appellant. 4.      Respondent-Applicant, who appeared in person, would submit that if  the respondents or the appellants in the appeals have any objection in regard  to acceptance of the amount deposited by him in this Court pursuant to the  aforementioned order, he would withdraw his application.   5.      Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original  appellants, however, would draw our attention to the statements made in the  additional affidavit affirmed by the applicant and submitted that this Court,  in view of his conduct, should not permit him to withdraw this application at  this stage as correctness of the statement made in the said additional  affidavit is in question.   6.      The learned counsel submitted that an affidavit had been affirmed by  one Harish Kumar containing serious allegations against the original  appellants which were defamatory in nature.  The deponent of the said  affidavit should be permitted to be cross-examined.   7.      Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the applicants in I.A. No.17 filed in I.A. No.16 in C.A. No. 6327 of 2005,  would submit that it has become necessary for his client to be impleaded as a  party respondent to the proceedings as a deed of gift had been executed in its  favour by the appellants even prior to the institution of partition suit.   8.      In these Interlocutory Applications, this Court is concerned only with  the question at this stage as to whether permission should be accorded to the  applicant to deposit the amount as directed by this Court on 28.07.2006.  It  may be true that pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 28.07.2006, the  amount in question has already been deposited.  However, the applicant has  expressed his intention to withdraw the said application.  We do not see any  reason as to why he should not be permitted to do so.  In a proceeding of this  nature, this Court need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the  allegations made by the applicant against the appellants or any other person.   The prayer of the appellants that a copy of the CD which has been filed  along with I.A. No.16 should be given to them also need not be considered  at this stage.  In our opinion, interest of justice would be subserved if the  applicant is permitted to withdraw his Interlocutory Application.  If the  appellant or any other person is /are aggrieved by the statements made in the  additional affidavit of the applicant and/ or in the affidavit affirmed by one  Harish Kumar, they may raise such contentions in appropriate proceedings  as are permissible in law.  A copy of the CD filed by the applicant be sent in  a sealed cover to the executing court so as to enable the parties to file  appropriate applications before the executing court in respect thereof, if they  so desire. 9.      As we are permitting the applicant to withdraw his application, the  application for impleadment has become infructuous.  It is dismissed  accordingly.  The amount deposited by Shri V.M. Singh be returned to him. 10.     As the matter is pending for a long time, we would request the learned  executive court to consider the desirability of disposing of the execution  proceedings at an early date preferably within a period three months of the  from the communication of this order. 11.     Subject to the observations made hereinbefore, I.A. No.16 in both the  appeals is permitted to be withdrawn and other interlocutory applications are  dismissed as having become infructuous.