Neelampreet Kaur, Ms. Anubha Goel, Mr. Mayank Joshi, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Advs v. NCT OF DELHI ORS

Judgment

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, calling in question the correctness of the Judgment dated 04.05.2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Learned Single Judge in Test Case no.73 of 2021 captioned S.K. Mittal vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., while dismissing his application for a Letter of Administration in respect of the estate of his younger brother, Late Sh. Rajan Mittal, who passed away intestate on 18.06.2021. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:25.08.2025 17:32:21 FAO(OS) 44/2022 Page 1 of 13

Late Sh. Rajan Mittal was married to Smt. Reshu Mittal on

15.02.1997 and had two sons, namely, Sh. Shrey Mittal (DOB

16.12.1997) and Sh. Tushaal Mittal (DOB 02.03.2000).

3. Subsequently, marital discord began between them and on

06.03.2018, a Settlement Deed was arrived at between Late Sh. Rajan Mittal and his wife, Smt. Reshu Mittal, resolving their marital discord, while also agreeing to apply for a Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent. This aforesaid Settlement Deed was also signed by Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal.

4. It is to be noted here that the primary intention of the Settlement Deed was with regard to resolving their matrimonial dispute. However, for the purpose of the decision of the present Appeal, Clauses 6, 7(j) and 7(k) of the Settlement Deed are relevant for the decision of the present case, which reads as under: “6. That now in order to obtain the Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent the First Party has agreed to execute a Gift Deed in respect of the entire First Floor and Second Floor having land share of 45% beneath these floors and hereinafter referred to as the Gift Property (excluding the Ground Floor, the right to construct basement beneath Ground Floor, terrace or roof rights including the right to construct a Third Floor having land share of 55% beneath these floors, hereinafter referred to as the Said Residual Property) of Property No. B-6/49, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029 in favor of the Second Party No. 1 in respect of full & final settlement of all the disputes between the First Party and Second Party collectively (Second Party No. 1, 2 & 3).

7. That now all the parties have agreed to sign the present Settlement Deed on the following terms & Conditions: .......... j. That the Second Party No. 2 and the Second Party No. 3 agree that the present settlement is full and final settlement for all their claims arising out of birth against the First Party towards any ancestral property, movable or immovable (past, present and future) etc. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:25.08.2025 17:32:21 FAO(OS) 44/2022 Page 2 of 13 k. That the Second Party No. 1 agrees that the present settlement is full and final settlement for all the claims of the Second Party No.2 and the Second Party No.3 arising against the First Party towards any ancestral property, movable or immovable (past, present and future) etc.”

5. Pursuant to the Settlement Deed, a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed, which was disposed of by the Family Court on 23.05.2018 dissolving their marriage by a Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent. The Settlement Deed was produced in the proceedings before the Family Court, however, it never formed a part of the Decree of Divorce.

6. The Appellant (Sh. S. K. Mittal) claims that Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal have waived and relinquished all their rights and claims over any and all the properties of the deceased (past, present, and future) by signing the Settlement Deed. Hence, only the Appellant is entitled to the Letter of Administration.

7. Learned Single Judge has primarily dismissed the Petition on the following grounds: (i) Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal were only pro forma parties to the agreement; (ii) They did not receive any consideration under the said settlement; (iii) A bare renunciation of an expectation to inherit cannot bind the expectant heir unless he or she receives consideration for the renunciation; (iv) On the date of signing of the Settlement Deed, Sh. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:25.08.2025 17:32:21 FAO(OS) 44/2022 Page 3 of 13 Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal had no right of inheritance in respect of his self-acquired properties during the lifetime of their father; (v) Clauses 7(j) and 7(k), as extracted above, at most amount to relinquishment and waiver of rights in the ancestral properties, but would not affect the right of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal, in the self-acquired assets of their deceased father; and (vi) The instrument in question amounts to a transfer of the rights in an immovable property which can be transferred by an instrument recognized in law. An instrument which requires relinquishment of an immovable property worth Rs. 100 or more can be done only through a registered deed.

8. Learned counsel representing the Appellant has submitted that Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh. Tushaal Mittal were parties to the Settlement Deed, being Second Party No.2 and 3 respectively. He further submits that the Settlement Deed was in the nature of a memorandum of family settlement, which does not require registration in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Elumalai alias Venkatesan and Anr. vs. M. Kamala and Ors1 and Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors2.

9. It is submitted that the Respondents, Sh. Shrey Mittal and Sh.