1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1171 of 1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.1.2009 *** Vijay Kumar. .. Appellant VS. Municipal Committee, Jind and Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Joginder Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal the plaintiff- appellant has laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1995 passed by the Appellate court below reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1994 passed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of plot No.347-A, situated in Gandhi Nagar Scheme, Jind and construction erected thereupon and that the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1985 passed by the Court below in civil Appeal No. 148/13 of 12.9.1984 is not binding upon him. The plaintiff also sought the relief of injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent No.3 Suresh Kumar from interfering in his peaceful possession over the said plot. After the contest the learned trial court judgment and decree dated 29.3.1994 decreed the suit of the plaintiff in toto. Aggrieved with the same defendant-respondent No.3 Suresh Kumar preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the first Appellate Court below vide impugned judgment and decree and as a consequence thereof the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to be dismissed and it was directed that the plaintiff be 2 dispossessed from the suit property in due course of law. Hence this regular second appeal. Vide order dated 17.5.1995 the instant regular appeal was admitted for regular hearing and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession during pendency of the appeal. Now with the filing of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 205-C of 2009 it has been contended that the dispute is between the appellant and respondent No.3, who have amicably settled the dispute by entering into a compromise. Copy of compromise deed dated 5.1.2009, duly signed by attornies of respective parties has been placed, which is taken on record as Annexure C-1. It has been contended that by virtue of compromise arrived at between the parties, appellant and respondent No.3 have been agreed to be in joint owners of the suit property in equal shares. The learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 have also authenticated the compromise, entered between the parties. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below is set aside while the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are joint owners of the suit property to the extent of 50% each. Registry is directed to prepare the decree-sheet and compromise deed Ex.C-1, referred to above shall also form the part of the decree-sheet. It is also made clear that the parties are bound by compromise deed Ex.C-1. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 16 ,2009 Jiten