R.S.A No.1025 of 2003(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : August 26, 2009 1. R.S.A No.1025 of 2003(O&M) Harmander Singh and others vs Amarjit Singh and another. 2. R.S.A No.1026 of 2003(O&M) Harmander Singh and Ors vs Randhir Kaur @ Gurmel Kaur & Anr. 3. R.S.A No.1027 of 2003(O&M) Bhajan Kaur and others vs Amarjit Singh and another, 4. R.S.A No.1034 of 2003(O&M) Bhajan Kaur and others vs Randhir Kaur @ Gurmel Kaur & Anr. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate for respondent-Amarjit Singh. Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Randhir Kaur @ Gurmel Kaur. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This judgment shall dispose of R.S.A Nos.1025 to 1027 and 1034 of 2003 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.1025 of 2003. R.S.A No.1025 of 2003(O&M) ::2:: This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the the respondents to the effect that Khem Kaur and Randhir Kaur were entitled to be declared as L.Rs of Partap Singh along with Chand Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share each. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, kerava marriage can be proved without pleading of custom ? ii) Whether the non-registration of a Will have the same value as that of registration of Will ? iii) Whether the kerava marriage is proved in the present case, when there is no evidence regarding the same ?” It would be seen that each of the questions proposed is a question of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. Apart from the above, counsel for the appellants has proposed yet another question viz. whether the compromise effected by Randhir Kaur could be set aside by the learned lower appellate Court ? I find that the factum of compromise has been accepted by both the Courts below. However, the learned lower appellate Court has held it to be not a lawful compromise only on the ground that Randhir Kaur accepted the Will of Partap Singh which in its turn was not proved. In my opinion, the important fact is the intention of the parties to the compromise. The fact R.S.A No.1025 of 2003(O&M) ::3:: that as a part of the compromise Randhir Kaur accepted the Will would not term the compromise to be unlawful. Thus, it is declared that out of the total compensation of Rs.17.80 lacs, Khem Kaur would be entitled to 1/3rd share, and out of her 1/3rd share, 90% would go to respondent-Amarjit Singh. Out of the remaining amount, Randhir Kaur would be entitled to Rs.3.31 lacs. Whatever remains would go to Chand Singh/his L.Rs. Needless to say, of-course, that the interest which would have accrued on the said amount during this interregnum would also be divided between the parties on pro-rata basis. With these clarifications, these appeals are disposed of. As the main appeals have since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 26, 2009. JUDGE `kk'