CMPMO 274 of 2005 7.4.2009 Present: Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. CMPMO 274 of 2005 This petition has been preferred by the Decree Holder under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is undisputed before me that a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the following terms:- “Re-conciliation tried and effected which took two hours. The defendant No. 2 and Shri Ajmer Singh, Adv. the learned counsel for the defendants made a statement that the defendants are prepared to part with 1/3rd share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants shall have no concern with it. The remaining 2/3rd share will be owned and possessed by the defendants with which the plaintiff shall have no concern. It has been further stated that in case, there is any property of the father of the parties, the same shall be divided as per above referred shares and statements. It has been further stated that the house of R.C.C. construction will go to defendant No. 2 Sh. Avinash Chand as the same has been constructed by him and the land measuring 6 Kanals which has come to defendant No. 2 from his mother through will of 1981 will also fall to the share of the defendant and the plaintiff will have no concern with it. The plaintiff and his counsel Sh. Sunil Verma, Advocate has admitted the statement of defendant No. 2 and the learned counsel for the defendants to be correct. In the light of the above referred statement, it is ordered that the plaintiff shall be the owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land and the defendants shall be the owners to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit property. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly and the statements recorded today shall form part of the decree sheet. No order as to costs. Be consigned.” -2- A reading of order passed by the learned trial Court clearly brings out that not only the suit property but also any other property belonging to the father of parties to this petition was also to be divided in proportion to the shares, as agreed above This is further evident from the statements of the parties recorded and placed on record of the case, which also accepts this position. The petitioner herein filed an execution petition claiming shares in the property as detailed therein in proportion to the shares as provided for in the compromise. The learned Court has dismissed the execution petition holding that the decree does not provide for division of other property except the suit property in which the compromise decree was passed. This reasoning is unsustainable. It is clear that a compromise decree is nothing but the compromise on which it is based. It is further clear that the intention of the parties was to divide not only the suit property but all that property which belonged to their father jointly which intention was clearly stated and manifested in their statements as also the order. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court that it shall determine afresh as to whether the property claimed in execution was that of the father of parties and then proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All interim orders shall stand vacated. Records, if received, be sent back immediately. April 7, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J.