1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3645 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2011 *** Anoop Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Swaran & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anupan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Compromise (Annexure A-1) and affidavits of appellants and respondents No.1 & 2 are taken on record. Plaintiff Swaran Singh and Amar Singh (respondents No.1 and 2) filed a suit against their father Hazara Singh, brother Anoop Singh (appellant No.1) and his sons namely Harpinder Singh, Daljit Singh, Baljinder Singh and Harinder Singh (appellants No.2 to 5) and claimed 1/3rd share each in the suit land and also challenged the collusive judgment and decree dated 1.3.1997 executed by their father in favour of remaining defendants. It was their case that the suit property is ancestral in nature, but their brother Anoop Singh, in connivance with his sons got the same mutated in their favour by virtue of the said civil court decree. They also claimed joint possession in the suit property. The defendants denied that the suit property is ancestral, rather the same was self acquired property of Hazara Singh and he was within his right to transfer the same in their favour. They further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 was given land measuring 25 kanal 3 marlas while plaintiff No.2 was being paid to purchase the land and hence, they have no right, title or 2 interest in the suit property. After the contest, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in the following manner:- “In view of my findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs and they are declared to be entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit property measuring 144 kanals 8 marlas. Plaintiff no.2 shall also be entitled for joint possession of the suit land to the extents of 1/4th share, whereas plaintiff no.1 shall be entitled for joint possession of the land of his share excluding land measuring 25 kanals 3 marlas of which he is already in possession. Entries in the Revenue record are also ordered to be corrected accordingly. Defendants are restrained from alienating more than their share in the suit land and also from interfering in the possession of plaintiff no.1 over land measuring 25 kanals 3 marlas which is in his exclusive possession forcibly and illegally. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.” Defendants No.2 to 6, dis-satisfied with the same, preferred an appeal and the learned appellate Court below vide judgment dated 27.9.2007 held as under:- “In view of my findings on the above issues, I partly accept this appeal and set aside decree passed by the trial court and instead I pass decree in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 for declaration that the decree dated 1.3.1997 is null and void and shall not effect on their rights after the death of defendant no.1 and mutation sanctioned on the basis of the same is illegal and void. Suit of the plaintiff regarding other relief stands dismissed.” 3 Still dis-satisfied the instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants No.2 to 6. During pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into settlement and compromise (Annexure A-1) has been placed on record, according to which plaintiff Swaran Singh has been given 6 kanals of land, fully detailed in the compromise, in addition to 25 kanals 3 marlas of land, which is already under his possession while plaintiff Amar Singh has agreed to take cash in lieu of 6 kanals of land, half of which has already been paid to him while the remainder is to be paid on 1.9.2012. So far as appellants are concerned, they have become owner in possession of land measuring 113 kanals 05 marlas, fully detailed in the compromise. Both the parties have also agreed to get mutations entered afresh in their names, as per compromise. Affidavits of appellants as well as those of respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs have also been placed on record, to this effect. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the instant appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise (Annexure A-1) arrived at between the parties. The parties are bound by the compromise (Annexure A-1), which shall form part of the decree sheet. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 09,2011 Jiten