IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 299 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: November 29, 2011 Bahadur Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Tara Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J Notice of motion. Mr. Daljit Paul Singh, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents has submitted that there was no intention to implead general public, but as none had surfaced at the time to defend the suit, therefore, the general public was impleaded as defendant. Now the defendants-appellants (herein referred as, 'the defendants') have contested the suit and against them a decree was passed to the effect that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the owners to the extent of 1/10th share each and the plaintiffs No.5 to 7 to the extent of 1/30th share each of the land measuring 105 kanals 16 marlas i.e. ½ share of land measuring 211 kanals and 13 marlas as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Bathua, Tehsil Dhuri, vide jamabandi for the years 1991-92. The court had held that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of Narain Singh son of Mann Singh who is civilly dead and the court had also held that the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2006 passed in suit NO.124 dated 14.3.1995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri are illegal, null and void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and based on fraud, consequently, the mutation No.1941 sanctioned in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said judgment is liable to be set aside. The trial court had also granted R.S.A. No. 299 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** the consequential relief of joint possession of ½ share of land as referred to above and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate, mortgage or transfer the suit land in any manner whatsoever and they would also not raise any sort of construction in the land in dispute, however, the parties were left to bear their own costs. The appeal was preferred by defendants whereas Bachan Kaur had died and thereafter the defendants are the legal heirs of Bachan Kaur, as such, no further heir of Bachan Kaur was impleaded as appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate court vide judgment dated 26.5.2009 dismissed the appeal. Both the parties have appeared before me and submitted a written compromise Ex.C1 as executed between the parties including the legal heirs of Gurnam Kaur and Bant Kaur. Statements of both the parties have been recorded separately. In view of the statements made by the parties today in the court as well as from the compromise Ex.C1 placed on record, it has come out that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights in favour of the defendants after receiving a consideration amount of `65 lacs (Rupees sixty five lacs only) and they now want the appeal to be decided as per compromise. In view of the statements of the parties, the appeal is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed, however, the parties would remain bound by the compromise Ex.C1 dated 28.11.2011. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. November 29, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge