Settlement undertakings bind respondents to cooperate in mutation and not obstruct petitioners’ possession.

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Settlement Agreement dated 31 January 2019, which was incorporated into the judgment dated 15 February 2019 in CS(OS) 3324/2014.

The parties confirmed that the dispute concerning Plot No. 195, Sector 47, HUDA, Gurugram, had been resolved and that the petitioners had executed a Sale Deed dated 6 August 2026 in favour of the respondents.

Under paragraph A of the Settlement Agreement, a portion measuring 1,900 square yards out of the total 5,993.3 square yards property situated at Sangam Vihar, Delhi, had fallen to the petitioners’ share and was in their possession.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents had obstructed construction of a boundary wall and had broken the wall; the respondents stated that they had no objection to construction of the boundary wall over the portion already in the petitioners’ possession.

The petitioners further sought cooperation from the respondents for mutation or transfer of the relevant portion when such mutation became legally permissible, and the respondents gave an undertaking to cooperate.

1. Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the settlement terms incorporated in the judgment dated 15 February 2019, particularly in relation to the properties allocated to the respective parties.

2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from obstructing construction of a boundary wall around the portion of the Sangam Vihar property in the petitioners’ possession.

3. Whether the respondents were required to cooperate in mutation of the petitioners’ portion of the Sangam Vihar property when mutation became permissible.

The Court applied the principle that a settlement agreement incorporated into a court judgment is binding on the parties and may be enforced through contempt proceedings where there is wilful disobedience.

The Court also relied on the legal effect of an undertaking made to the Court: a party giving such an undertaking is bound by it and must comply with its terms.

The Court noted that the Gurugram property dispute had already been resolved through execution of the Sale Deed, and therefore no further adjudication was required on that aspect.

As regards the Sangam Vihar property, the respondents acknowledged that the 1,900-square-yard portion was in the petitioners’ possession and expressly stated that they had no objection to construction of a boundary wall over that portion.

On that basis, the Court directed the respondents not to create any hindrance in such construction.

Since mutation was stated to be presently unavailable due to the property’s prior agricultural character and subsequent urbanisation, the Court treated the respondents’ assurance of future cooperation as a binding undertaking and formally held the respondents bound by it.

It further held the respondents bound by their undertaking to cooperate with the petitioners in securing mutation of that portion in the petitioners’ favour when mutation became permissible.

Finding that no further orders were necessary, the Court disposed of the contempt petition.