R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.12398-C of 2009 and R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 Date of decision:11th November, 2009 Ravi Shankar and others .....Appellants Versus Bimla Devi and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. NO. 12398-C of 2009 and R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 Prayer in this application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is for disposal of the appeal in terms the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009. The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 19.09.1988 and 9.04.1991 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot and the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, decreeing the suit and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff, since deceased and now represented by the respondents filed a suit for grant of an injunction to restrain the deceased defendant, now represented by the appellants from R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 -2- interfering in his possession in a Nohra and a House. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in its entirety. The first appellate court, however, modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court with respect to the rights of Lachhmi Devi to alienate the suit property. During the pendency of this appeal, parties have arrived a compromise Annexure C-1 dated 10.11.2009. Counsel for the parties pray that as the appellants and the respondents have settled their dispute by a bonafide compromise, the application be allowed and the appeal be disposed of in terms of the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009. The statement of Vijay Shankar appellant for himself and as attorney of the other appellants namely Ravi Shankar, Jai Shankar, Gopal Shankar. Sushma Sharma, Renu Sharma has been recorded in Court. The statements of Bimla Devi respondent no. 1 and Neel Kanth respondent no. 2, have also been recorded in Court today. The statement of Vijay Shankar reads as follows:- Statement of Vijay Shankar son of Pt. Ram Sarup Sharma, resident of House No. 4016, Bikaner Road, Fazilka District Ferozepur, Punjab, for himself and as attorney of Ravi Shankar, Jai Shankar, Gopal Shankar sons of Pt. Ram Sarup Sharma and Sushma Sharma, Renu Sharma daughters of Pt. Ram Sarup Sharma. The parties to the present appeal have entered into a compromise. I have appended my signatures on every page of the compromise and on the last page on my behalf and on behalf of the other appellants. The compromise has been arrived voluntarily without any fraud, coercion or undue R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 -3- influence. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, in the compromise deed, dated 10.11.2009. I identify the signatures of Som Parkash and Ashok Kumar who have witnessed the compromise. I pray that in view of the compromise, the appeal be disposed of in terms thereof. Statement of Bimla Devi widow of late Shri Sunder Lal, resident of Arya Samaj Street, Kot Kapura, District Faridkot, Punjab. I have effected a compromise with the appellants voluntarily, free from any fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. I identify my signatures on the various pages of the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009 and also identify the signatures of the attesting witnesses Som Parkash and Ashok Kumar who have witnessed the compromise. I have no objection, if the appellants are allowed to withdraw the appeal and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are modified in terms of the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009. Statement of Neel Kanth son of late Shri Sunder Lal, resident of Arya Samaj Street, Kot Kapura, District Faridkot, Punjab. I have effected a compromise with the appellants voluntarily, free from any fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. I identify my signatures on the various pages of the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009 and also identify the signatures of the attesting witnesses Som Parkash and Ashok Kumar who have witnessed the compromise. I have no objection, if the appellants are allowed to withdraw the appeal and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are modified in terms of the compromise deed dated 10.11.2009. R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 -4- I have considered the statements of the parties, perused the contents of the compromise deed and find no reason to deny the prayer for allowing the parties to compromise their dispute. The terms and conditions of the compromise read as follows:- “1. Neel Kanth and Bimla Devi, Legal Representatives of Sunder Lal are and will ever remain the owners of the Nohra and the House which is suit property and the First Party shall not interfere in their ownership and possession and Neel Kanth and Bimla Devi are entitled to use the suit property in any manner they like. 2. That the members of the First Party have received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) from the second party in lieu of the value of the share of Lachhmi Devi in the disputed property and the members of the First Party shall not have any claim, right or interest in the Nohra and the House the suit property and the second party shall be considered to be full fledged and absolute owner of Nohra and House vis a vis the members of the First party. 3. That RSA No. 1616 of 1991 titled as Lachhmi Devi versus Neek Kanth etc. shall be got dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the compromise duly supported by the statements of the parties, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below shall stand modified in terms of the compromise. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The statements of the parties and R.S.A.NO.1616 OF 1991 -5- terms and conditions of the compromise shall form part of the decree. A decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. It is made clear that this compromise shall not affect the rights of any other person. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 11th November, 2009 Shivani Kaushik