RSA No.2467 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2467 of 2008 Date of Decision: 01.12.2008 Laxman ....appellant Versus Lakhan .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.N.D.Achint,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is lawful owner in possession to the extent of 112/144th share which comes to 5 kanals 12 marla out of killa No.9 of Rect.No.25 on the basis of compromise dated 09.01.1981 and the mutation No.426 is illegal to this extent and mutation as well as the revenue entries are liable to be corrected as per the compromise dated 09.01.1981 and the defendant is wrongly shown owner of ½ share of land killa No.9 of Rect.No.25 and the defendant is owner of only 32/144 share measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas area out of killa No.9 of Rect.No.25 has been dismissed with costs. . Briefly stated as per the averments in the plaint father of the parties to the suit who was owner in possession of the land measuring 76 kanals 4 marlas as per detail given in the plaint, had executed a registered Will dated 16.11.1978 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant without notice and knowledge of the plaintiff. On his demise, a dispute arose regarding RSA No.2467 of 2008 2 validity of Will as father of the appellant was not competent to bequeath the ancestral land. Ultimately, a written compromise dated 09.01.1981 took place between the parties, wherein the plaintiff was made owner of the land out of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint (i) Rect.No.31, Killa No.1/2(5-15), 2/2(6-4), 3(7-12), 10/1(7-2) measuring 26 kanals 13 marlas (ii) ½ share out of the land comprising of Rect No.25, Killa No.9(7-4). The plaintiff was also given an area measuring 2 kanals i.e. 9 Karam X 40 Karam out of Killa No.9, Rect.No.25 towards West in addition to half share already given to plaintiff out of Killa No.9, Rect.No.25. Since the compromise, the plaintiff was owner in possession of the above said land including 2 kanals i.e. 9 Karam x 40 Karam out of Killa No.9 towards West. However, at the time of sanctioning of mutation the revenue officer did not sanction the mutation as per the written compromise as a result of which the plaintiff was not shown owner of land measuring 2 kanals towards West of Killa No.9. The said mutation was sanctioned without notice and knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is owner in possession of 112/144 share measuring 5 kanals 12 marlas out of killa No.9 of Rect.No.25(7-4) and the defendant is co-sharer to the extent of 32/144 share measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas only. The mutation in question is totally illegal and result of collusion between the defendant and revenue officer. The plaintiff came to know about the illegal act of the defendant and the revenue officer, 2 months prior to the filing of the suit. He approached the defendant to get the mutation corrected but the defendant refused to do so. Hence the suit. Defendant filed written statement pleading that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the intention to grab the property of defendant. As per compromise dated 09.01.1981 plaintiff was given 2 kanals land out of khasra No.10/2 Rect.No.25 towards western side of land comprised in khasra No.9. Before compromise 5 kanal 2 marlas land fell into the share of plaintiff comprised in khasra No.10/2 as mentioned in RSA No.2467 of 2008 3 mutation No.426 dated 13.11.1981. After compromise plaintiff became owner of 7 kanal 2 marlas of land comprised in khasra No.10/2. Before compromise dated 09.01.1981 defendant was recorded owner of 2 kanal 18 marlas of the land comprised in khasra No.10/2 Rect.No.25. After compromise the defendant left with 18 marlas of land comprised in khasra No.10/2. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the land of the defendant. It is denied that as per compromise plaintiff was given 2 kanals land measuring 9 karams x 40 karams out of land comprised in khasra No.9 Rect.No.25 in addition to half share already given to the plaintiff out of khasra No.9. It is pleaded that the mutation has been sanctioned by the concerned revenue officer in terms of the compromise. It is prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective assertions in this case. After hearing arguments both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below the plaintiff has filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decrees on the plea that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on the file. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the compromise dated 09.01.1981. According to him, he has been given 2 kanals of land to the West of “Gair Mumkin Chaha” Rect. No.25 in khasra No.9. Whereas the Courts below have interpreted the compromise to the effect that appellant has been given 2 kanals of land to the West of khasra No.25/9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The compromise dated 09.01.1981 reads as under: “The parties have arrived at a compromise. Lakhan and Laxman are declared owner of Rect. No.25 khasra No.9 RSA No.2467 of 2008 4 including a “Gair Mumkin Chaha” to the extent of half share each and Laxman is also declared owner of 9 karam x 40 karam measuring 2 kanal of land to the west of that land. Lakhan is declared owner of the remaining land”. In my opinion, the above said compromise leaves no room for ambiguity. It is very clear that the parties got half share each in Rect.No.25 Khasra No.9 and out of the other land which is to the West of this killa number. Plaintiff got 2 kanals and Lakhan got the remaining portion of the land out of the above said killa number. It has been clearly stated in the aforesaid compromise that the appellant has been given 2 kanals of land measuring 9 karams x 40 karams to the West of land comprised in Rect.No.25 khasra No.9. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.12.2008 neenu