RSA No. 2812 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2812 of 1993 Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Pritam Singh (dead) represented through LRs. ...Appellant Vs. Mehal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.M.S.Bedi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Bakshi, Advocate, for respondents No. 11 and 12. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This regular second appeal preferred by Pritam Singh defendant No.2 is against the judgment dated 2.11.1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. Plaintiff Joginder Singh, now respondent No.2, had filed a RSA No. 2812 of 1993 2 suit for declaration against Mehal Singh and other defendants that he is the owner of the land to the extent of 1/3rd share and for joint possession. It is alleged that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 being Hindus are governed by Hindu Law. Property in dispute was purchased by Tara Singh ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4. On the death of Tara Singh, Kala Singh along with his sons became the owners of the same as per Hindu Law. After the death of Kala Singh, property devolved upon Natha Singh and his sons to the extent of 1/3rd share and Santa Singh along with his son to the extent of 1/3rd share and Mangal Singh along with his son Joginder Singh plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share. Mangal Singh died leaving behind sole legal heir Joginder Singh plaintiff. It was further alleged that the plaintiff constituted a joint Hindu family with his father Mangal Singh who died on 23.5.1990. He had executed a Will in his favour on 3.12.1976. During the life time of Mangal Singh certain people wanted to grab the property, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit for permanent injunction. However by getting undue advantage of the old age of Mangal Singh, Pritam Singh defendant No.2 got alienated certain part of the property in favour of his wife Smt. Gurmeet Kaur defendant No.5. Thus, he challenged the said Will. Defendant Nos.5 to 10 were impleaded in the suit being the co-sharers. However, the plaintiff is concerned with 1/3rd share of the land, which was once owned by Mangal Singh. The defendants, in response to notice of summons, RSA No. 2812 of 1993 3 appeared in the court and filed a written compromise. Joginder Singh plaintiff made a statement in the court that he does not want to claim any relief against defendants Nos.4 to 10, whereas defendants Nos.1 to 3 effected compromise as per terms and conditions contained in the compromise deed Ex.P.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought the relief in the terms of the compromise Ex.P.1. On 26.7.1990 Pritam Singh one of the co-defendants i.e. defendant No.1 moved an application that the compromise dated 13.7.1990 was the result of fraud and undue pressure at the hands of the police. He never intended to compromise as such he prayed for repudiating the compromise. The said application was contested by the plaintiff. Consequently the trial court in order to examine the validity of the compromise framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the statement made by Pritam Singh defendant No.2 was made under police pressure or given on account of free will, if so its effect. 2. Relief. Trial court while deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff observed as follows:- Therefore, I hold statement made by Pritam Singh is not product of police coercion and the parties i.e. the plaintiff and defendants No. t to 3 have adjusted their claim wholly and in part by lawful compromise Ex.PX and accordingly the suit is decided in terms and conditions of the RSA No. 2812 of 1993 4 compromise Ex.PX whereby two khasra numbers 8/23 (8-0) and 8/24 (8-0) were sold by Mangal Singh to Gurmit Kaur and the remaining 28 kanals out of remaining 49 kanals 19 marlas was given to Joginder Singh plaintiff whereas the remaining 21 kanals 19 marlas has been given to Pritam Singh son of Natha Singh. Consequently, trial court passed the decree on the basis of the said compromise Ex.P.1 and compromise was ordered to form the part of the judgment. Appeal preferred by defendant No.2 was dismissed. Substantial question of law which has arisen for determination in this appeal is as follows:- 1. Whether the compromise Ex.P.1 entered between the parties was having any binding force? Both the courts below have elaborately discussed that compromise entered into by Joginder Singh and defendants was the result of free will and consent. None of the parties except Pritam Singh have disputed the compromise. No such evidence has been led which may prove that it was the result of fraud and police pressure. Pritam Singh defendant has admitted his thumb impression on the compromise. Statements of the parties were also recorded in the court. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure lays down that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has RSA No. 2812 of 1993 5 been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. Trial court by examining entire evidence reached the conclusion that the compromise was quite valid and passed the decree accordingly. Other defendants have also not challenged the said agreement. Thus, the substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 7.11.2011 Judge rp