R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. Nos. 4709 to 4712-C of 2007 and Civil Misc. Nos. 5143 & 5349-C of 2007 and R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) Date of decision:20th August, 2009 Shugan Chand and others ……Appellants Versus Nirmaljit Singh and another ……Respondents R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) Narender Pal and others ……..Appellants Versus Shugan Chand and others ……..Respondents Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the applicants-Sukhjinder Singh and Rajesh Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the applicants-Vivek Bahl and Kewal Krishan 1 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) Rajive Bhalla, J. Civil Misc. No.4709-C of 2007 in R.S.A.No.3234 of 2006 Allowed as prayed for. Filing of certified copies of Annexures A-1 and A-2 are dispensed with. Civil Misc. No. 4710-C of 2007 in R.S.A.No. 3234 of 2006 Prayer in this application is for impleading LRs of Smt. Rajeshwari @ Raj Rani(deceased) – appellant no. 2 who is stated to have passed away. The legal representatives referred to in paragraph 2 of the application are impleaded as appellants in place of Rajeshwari @ Raj Rani(deceased) subject to all just exceptions. Office is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. C.M application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Misc. No. 4711-C of 2007 in R.S.A.No. 3234 of 2006 Prayer in this application is for impleading LRs of Smt. Leelawati (deceased) – appellant no. 3 who is stated to have passed away. The legal representatives referred to in paragraph 3 of the application are impleaded as appellants in place of Smt. Leelawati(deceased) on the basis of a will dated 21.12.2004, 2 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) subject to all just exceptions. It is made clear that this order shall not confer any legitimacy on the will dated 21.12.2004. Office is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. C.M application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Misc. No.4712-C of 2007 in R.S.A.No.3234 of 2006 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is for placing on record the compromise deed dated 24.05.2007(Annexure A-2) and for grant of liberty to the appellants to compromise the appeal in terms of the written compromise dated 24.05.2007. Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. NO.5143-C of 2007 and Civil Misc. No. 5349-C of 2007 in R.S.A.No.3234 of 2006 Prayer in these applications, filed under Order 22 Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, is for impleading the applicants, Sukhjinder Singh son of Gobinder Singh and Rajesh Kumar son of Nand Lal as parties, as during the pendency of the suit, the appellants have executed an agreement to sell dated 1.09.2001 for 24 kanals and an agreement to sell dated 3.02.2003 for 9 kanals 7 marlas out of the suit land after receiving the entire sale consideration. C.M.No.5349 of 2007 is for impleading the applicants Vivek Bahl son of Roop Lal and Kewal Krishan son of Khariti Lal 3 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) as parties, as during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants have executed an agreement dated 26.04.2007, agreeing to sell 19 kanals 1 marla out of the suit land. Counsel for the applicants pray that though, they have filed separate suits for specific performance of these agreements, they are necessary parties to the appeal and should therefore, be impleaded as such. It is further submitted that the appellants and the respondents should not be allowed to compromise the matter as any order passed on the basis of the compromise herein would necessarily affect their rights. On 23.12.2008, the following order was passed in C.M.No.5143-C of 2007:- “Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicants in C.M.No.5143-C of 2007 which has been moved for being impleaded as parties, states that in-fact the intending parties have become owner of the land in dispute and this compromise has been entered into just to defeat their right. It is not disputed that these persons have filed independent civil suits to establish their rights on the property in dispute. In my view, this proposed compromise to which these persons are not a party cannot be held to affect the rights 4 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) of these persons and they would be at liberty to establish their rights in the civil suits, filed by them.” In view of the above order, the compromise would not affect the rights of the applicants and they would be at liberty to establish their rights in the civil suits filed by them. The applications have therefore, been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly, without expression of any opinion on merits. It is made clear that the compromise, would be subject to the outcome of the civil suits, filed by the applicants. The applicants shall be entitled to raise all such pleas as may be available to them in accordance with law. R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006 & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007 This order shall dispose of two appeals namely Regular Second Appeal No. 3234 of 2006 (Shugan Chand and others Vs. Nirmaljit Singh and another) and Regular Second Appeal No. 301 of 2007 (Narendar Pal and others Vs. Shugan Chand and others), as they arise from the same judgments and decrees. Counsel for the parties pray that in view of the bonafide compromise, Annexure A-2, the appeals be decided in terms thereof. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the suit for possession and R.S.A.No. 3234 of 2006 filed by Shugan Chand be dismissed 5 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) and R.S.A.No.301 of 2007 be allowed. It is further submitted that as a necessary consequence, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court would have to be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court would have to be restored. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the compromise dated 24.05.2007(Annexure A-2), the statements made by the parties on 6.07.2007 and am of the opinion that the compromise reflects a bonafide resolution of the dispute by the parties free from any fraud, coercion or undue influence. The statements of the parties were recorded on 6.07.2007. They have acknowledged the correctness of the compromise and identified their signatures on the compromise. Paragraph 5 sets out the terms and conditions of the compromise and reads as follows:- “That as per the compromise second party has become the owner of the whole property mentioned in para no. 2 above to the effect that Avtar Singh is owner of one-half share and Narinder Pal Singh, Kulwinder Pal Singh and Surinder Pal Singh are owner of one-half share. The second party is already in possession of the whole property. The firwt party has received a lump- sum amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs. Fourty Lacs only) from the second party in the presence of the witnesses in lieu of their total claim whatsoever. The first party shall not claim any 6 R.S.A.NO.3234 OF 2006(O&M) & R.S.A.NO. 301 OF 2007(O&M) right, title or interest whatsoever in the property and the same shall be exclusively and absolutely owned and possessed by the second party as per their share. The first party shall be bound to give necessary consent if any required for the change of revenue record in favour of the second party.” In view of the above mentioned facts, the prayer for compromise of the dispute is accepted. As a consequence, R.S.A.No. 3234 of 2006 is dismissed. R.S.A. No.301 of 2007 is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 14.10.2004 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 24.2.1998, Pehowa is restored. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 20th August, 2009 SKaushik 7