(O&M) , CM-2018-C-2023 Affidavit of appellant Devi Singh as well as respondent No. 1 Malkhan Singh filed. Both of them are present in the court and they have admitted that the matter has since been compromised between the parties and in terms thereof the appeal be accepted and it be disposed of accordingly. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that palintiff Malkhan Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against defendants Devi Singh, Naresh, Raju @ Rajesh all sons of Ronak, residents of village Prem Khera, Tehsil and District Karnal as well as Bal Singh son of Nagar, resident of village Sambhli, Tehsil and District Karnal contending that Bal Singh defendant No. 4 along with plaintiff and others were owner in possession of the joint land. He has sold 12 kanals of land out of his share to defendants Devi Singh, Naresh and Raju @ Rajesh vide a registered sale PARVINDER SINGH 2023.03.17 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh deed executed on 10.3.1989 and registered on 14.3.1989 for a consideration amount of Rs.81,000/-, although actual sale price paid was Rs.56,000/-; that plaintiff being co-sharer had a superior right of pre-emption and he asked the vendees to acknowledge the same and hand over the subject matter of the sale deed to them after accepting the consideration amount but they failed to do so as such the plaintiff brought the suit in question. On notice only defendants No. 1 to 3 had appeared and contested the suit whereas defendant No. 4 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex-parte. On pleading of the parties following issues were framed :- 1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre- emption in respect of sale agri. land detailed and described in para No. 2 of the plaint, as alleged ? OPP. 2) Whether the suit land was sold for a consideration of Rs.56,000/- and Rs.81,000/- have been fictitiously shown, as alleged ? OPP. 3) If issue No. 2 is not proved then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale ? OPP. 4) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi? OPD. 5) Whether the suit is time barred ?OPD. 6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD. 7) Whether the defendants have spent stamp and registration chargers, if so to what effect? OPD. 7A) Whether the vendee-defendants have made improvement over the suit land ?OPD. 8) Relief. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead evidence. After hearing arguments the trial Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 20.4.1993 decreed the suit with a direction that plaintiff shall pay to the defendants/vendees a sum of PARVINDER SINGH 2023.03.17 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh Rs.81,000/- by way of sale price, Rs.10,125 as stamp charges, Rs.500/- as registration charges, Rs.100 as miscellaneous expenses totalling Rs.91,725 minus 1/5th pre-emption amount already deposited within a period of 45 days from the date of decree and in case of their failure to do so the suit would be deemed to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants No. 1 to 3 had preferred an appeal before District Judge, Karnal which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Karnal who vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.1994 dismissed the appeal in the process of affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Still feeling dissatisfied defendants No. 1 to 3 have preferred a Regular Second Appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to respondent plaintiff, who has put in appearance through his counsel. During pendency of the appeal, the parties have resolved the dispute amicably vide written compromise Annexure A-1 which is exhibited as Ex.C1 for convenience of reference. An application has been filed for disposing of the appeal in view of the compromise. The application is allowed. The main case is taken up today for final hearing. A perusal of the compromise goes to show that respondent plaintiff has given up his claim to pre-empt the sale deed in favour of appellants defendants. The respondent plaintiff who is present in the Court along with his counsel Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate admits the compromise stating that the appeal be disposed of in terms of such compromise. Similar is the prayer made by the appellants who are present with their counsel. PARVINDER SINGH 2023.03.17 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh Accordingly, in terms of the compromise the Regular Second Appeal is accepted. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. The suit for possession by way of pre-emption filed by plaintiff Malkhan Singh against defendants Devi Singh and others stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The amount deposited by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit be released to him as per rules. , PARVINDER SINGH 2023.03.17 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh