IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.17 of 2001. with RSA No.31 of 2001. Date of decision: May 31, 2011. 1. RSA No.17 of 2001. Roshan Lal ….Appellant. Versus Shambhu Ram. ….Respondent. 2. RSA No.31 of 2001. Roshan Lal ….Appellant. Versus Shambhu Ram. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant : Appellant with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent : Respondent with Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : Vide order dated 11.4.2001, this Court felt that the litigation inter-se the parties are between the real brothers, thus the date was given for the compromise. Both the appeals were ordered to be listed together. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 2. Today, both the parties are present. With the intervention of their respective counsel, they have fully and finally settled the dispute in both the appeals aforesaid. 3. In RSA No.17 of 2001 arising from the suit filed by appellant Roshan Lal had prayed for the permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent Shambu Ram with respect to Khasra No.517 bearing 7 Kanals 19 Marlas, situated in village Khaneu, Mauja Dharsour, Sub-Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, as per jamabandi for the years 1989-90, which has a built up house alleged to have been constructed by his father. 4. Respondent Shambhu Ram also filed a suit against Roshan Lal with respect to Khasra No.310, whereby he prayed for possession by way of partition of the house over 1 (one) Kanal, situated in village Khaneu, Mauja Dharsour, Sub-Tehsil Sujanpur, district Hamirpur, H.P, as per jamabandi for the years 1989-90. His suit was decreed by the learned trial Court and appeal filed by Roshan Lal was dismissed, thus, Roshan Lal appellant filed RSA No.31 of 2001. - 3 - 5. Now applications (CMP No. 439 of 2001 in RSA No.17 of 2001 and CMP No.440 of 2011 in RSA No.31 of 2001) have been moved to record the compromise inter-se the parties and according to them, they have fully and finally settled the dispute in both the appeals. Statements of both the parties have been recorded. Roshan Lal appellant has agreed to part with his share in Khasra No.517 in favour of his brother Shambhu Ram respondent alongwith the built-up structure, whereas respondent Shambhu Ram has parted with his share in favour of his elder brother Roshan Lal with respect to Khasra No.310 alongwith built up house. To this effect, their statements have been duly recorded to the satisfaction of this Court and the compromise recorded in terms of Ext.C1 placed in RSA No.17 of 2001 and Ext.C2 in RSA No.31 of 2001, which are also duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel. Compromise aforesaid is lawful and represents the true and correct terms and conditions as agreed by the parties. 6. In view of the above situation, the impugned decree(s) passed by the Courts below in both the suits - 4 - is/ are hereby set-aside and this court doth pass a compromise decree in the following terms:- “The appellant Roshan Lal shall be the exclusive owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.310 measuring 1(one) Kanal alongwith built up house and respondent Shambhu Ram shall be the exclusive owner in possession of Khasra No.517 measuring 7 kanals and 19 Marlas including the built up structure i.e. the house situated in village Khaneu, Mauja Dharsour, Sub-Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P”. 7. Both the parties shall apply to the revenue authorities, for changing the revenue entries in accordance with compromise decree. The compromise aforesaid shall form the part of the decree. 8. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, the applications if any, pending are also disposed of. The Stay, if any, granted shall stand vacated. 10. An authenticated copy of this order/judgment be placed in RSA No.31 of 2001. May 31, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.