R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2011 Davinder Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Kuldeep Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.1 **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit property mentioned in head note 'A' of the plaint and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant No.4 was owner in possession of the suit property and had sold the same to the plaintiff vide sale deeds dated 17.5.2001 and 11.6.2001. Defendants No.1 to 3 had purchased the land from proforma R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 2 defendants bearing khasra No. 25//23/1(7-2), 22/1(7-2), 21/2(3-19), 20/1/2(1-1) situated in village Gadhera. The land was purchased by them without any tubewell bore etc. vide registered sale deed dated 10.5.2002. The land purchased by the plaintiff was bearing khasra No.25//19 min (5-1), 20/1 min (2-19), 18(8-0), 19 min (2-19) situated in village Gadhera. The plaintiff had purchased the land along with tubewell bore etc. A compromise was effected between the previous owners qua the use and ownership of the tubewell. Defendants No.1 to 3 after demarcation of the land want to stop the plaintiff from use of the suit property. The plaintiff got fitted the doors to the kotha/ room of the tubewell after its purchase and had got the kotha repaired by spending ` 5,000/-. In the alternative, plaintiff prayed that in case he was not entitled to use the property in dispute then he may be awarded damages. Defendants No.1 to 3, in their written statement, admitted that the defendants had purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 10.5.2002. It was, however, denied that the defendants had purchased the land without the tubewell bore etc. The plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff that he had purchased the land from defendant No.4 along with tubewell were denied. It was averred that the defendants were using the suit property since the date of purchase without any interruption. Defendants No. 4 to 9 were proceeded ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether Inder Kumar defendant No.4 was owner in R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 3 possession of suit property? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff purchased suit property from defendant No.4? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is in possession of suit property and enjoying the same ? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 5.Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 6. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD 7.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit ? OPD 8.Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the suit ? OPD 9. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2010 passed by the District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that by way of the present suit, the plaintiff want to enter in the land of the appellants. The plaintiff had no concern with the land in dispute. In fact, the tubewell had not been constructed on the boundary line as alleged. Between the lands of the plaintiff and appellants, there was no man land and hence, there was no occasion for digging of the R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 4 tubewell on the boundry line. The suit land was liable to be demarcated. The Courts below had erred in basing reliance on the compromise which had not been proved on record nor did it form part of the decree. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, has submitted that the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. As per the compromise effected between the vendors of the appellants as well as the plaintiff, it was agreed that a motor/bore was owned by Inder Kumar (vendor of the plaintiff) and it will be jointly used by the parties for irrigation purposes till the property was not sold by Ramesh Chand and others. The contents of the compromise were duly mentioned in judgment Ex. P-4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the most important document is the judgment dated 9.12.2000, Ex.P-4, which is based on compromise effected between the parties. The said judgment was passed in appeal in a suit filed by Inder Kumar against Ramesh Chand and others. The judgment dated 9.12.2000 reads as under:- “Today the parties have compromised and compromise Ex.C-1 has been produced on record. The appellants as well as respondents have accepted the compromise and have stated that out of 42 kanals 7 marlas of land i.e. Out of the suit land the plaintiff- respondent abandons his claim qua 19 kanals 4 marlas of R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 5 land as mentioned in the compromise Ex.C-1 and the suit filed by him (Inder Kumar) may be partly decreed qua 23 kanals 3 marlas of the land comprised of khewat khatoni No.31/36, Khasra No.25//11/3 (4-4), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20/min(2-19) situated in village Gadhera, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib and the suit qua the remaining land may be dismissed. In view of the compromise made by the parties, I hereby partly accept the appeal while holding that the plaintiff-respondent Inder Kumar will be entitled to possession with regard to the land comprised of Khasra No.25//11/3(4-4), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20/min(2-19) and his suit qua the remaining land is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. Lower court file be returned.” Thus, the execution of the compromise between the vendors of the parties is not in dispute. Clause 6 of the compromise Ex.P-2 reads as under:- “That the parties have further agreed that the motor/ bore will be jointly used by parties for irrigation purposes till respondent/plaintiff does not sale his property. The motor/ bore is in the ownership of Inder Kumar respondent/ plaintiff.” Thus, the parties to the compromise had agreed that the motor/ bore would remain in the ownership of Inder Kumar and both the parties would use the same jointly for irrigation purposes till Romesh Chand and other do not sell their property. The plaintiff had purchased the property from Inder Kumar, whereas, defendants No.1 to 3 had R.S.A.No. 2425 of 2010 (O&M) 6 purchased the property from Sheeshpal and others. Since the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 3 has stepped into the shoes of their respective vendors, they are bound by the terms of the compromise Ex.P-2. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2011 anita