Ms. Panna Mangat & Anr. vs. State & Ors.

Held

The Court accepted the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The settlement agreement, dated October 30, 2019, was duly signed by the parties, including petitioner No. 1 on behalf of herself and as a power of attorney holder for petitioner No. 2, and by respondents No. 2 and 3. In view of this settlement, which effectively resolved all disputes concerning the distribution of the deceased's properties and superseded the Will, petitioner No. 1, present in court, sought and was granted leave to withdraw the petition. The Court noted that a copy of the power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 by petitioner No. 2 was placed on record. Consequently, the Testamentary Case No. 19/2019 was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not make any findings on the validity or interpretation of the Will itself, as the matter was settled.

Facts

This case involves a petition for grant of probate or letters of administration concerning the properties of the late Sh. Surjeet Singh Narang, filed by Ms. Panna Mangat and another (petitioners). The deceased was the father of the petitioners and respondent No. 3, and husband of respondent No. 2. The parties engaged in mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, resulting in a settlement agreement dated October 30, 2019. This agreement detailed the distribution of movable and immovable properties among the parties, superseding the terms of the deceased's registered Will dated April 11, 2017. Following the settlement, petitioner No. 1, present in court and holding a power of attorney for petitioner No. 2, sought to withdraw the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties should be accepted and acted upon by the Court, superseding the Will of the deceased? 2. Whether the petition for grant of probate/letters of administration should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement agreement? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners, through their counsel and petitioner No. 1 in person, argued that a comprehensive settlement agreement had been reached between all parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. This settlement resolved all disputes regarding the distribution of the deceased's properties. Consequently, the petitioners sought to withdraw the present petition as it was no longer pressed in light of the mutually agreed-upon terms. They relied on the settlement agreement itself as the basis for their request. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State & Ors.) regarding the merits of the case or the settlement. Their representation was primarily for the purpose of the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the petitioners' request to withdraw the petition due to the settlement.