RSA No.485 of 2004. 27.03.2006 Present: Mr.R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajpal Singh Thakur,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anurag Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. CMP No.201 of 2006 in RSA No.485 of 2004. The parties have filed an application today in the Court for permission to record the compromise which has taken place between the parties. Both, plaintiff Garja Ram and Respondent Bali Ram present in the Court, have admitted their respective signatures on the compromise application. The parties have compromised the dispute between them. Under the compromise Bali Ram son of Shri Harju has been paid Rs.three lacs by the plaintiff-appellant Garja Ram as compensation to him for the land in dispute by a cheque No.302946, dated 27th March, 2006, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rani Kotla (Bilaspur), H.P. and Bali Ram has given his all rights, title or interest in favour of plaintiff-appellant Garja Ram in the suit property. Bali Ram admits possession of plaintiff-appellant Garja Ram. It is agreed to between the parties that neither the defendant nor his heirs, executors or successors shall claim any right, title or interest over the land in dispute. It is also stipulated between the parties that Shri Bali Ram shall be entitled to cut “Khair trees” standing on the land in dispute. Garja Ram has also permitted Bali Ram to use a room where he is presently residing till his life time. The compromise between the parties is recorded in the terms indicated above. Plaintiff Garja Ram is declared to be owner in possession of the property in dispute. It is further declared that Bali Ram shall have no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. However, he shall be entitled to the use and occupation of the residential room in his possession till his life time and will also be entitled to fell “Khair trees” standing on the land in dispute. This is subject to the condition that the amount of Rs.three lacs is encashed by respondent-defendant Bali Ram. The decree shall be accordingly drawn. The compromise (CMP No.201 of 2006) shall form part of the decree. There will be no order as to costs. CMP No.966 of 2004. In view of the compromise between the parties, this application does not survive. The interim orders dated 2nd November, 2004 are vacated. The application is disposed of. March 27, 2006 ( K C Sood ) (aks) Judge