RSA No. 1571 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1571 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.5.2011. Smt. Bimla Devi and others .......Appellants Vs. Krishan Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.L.Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff Surjit Singh had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 30 Kanals. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Achittar Singh was common ancestor of the parties. After his death, property was inherited by Baldev Singh and Moti Singh in equal shares. After the death of Baldev Singh, his share was inherited by Parmodh Singh. Plaintiff was son of Moti Singh from his first wife. Moti Singh solemnized second marriage with Lajyawati and defendants No. 1 and 2 were born out of the said wedlock. Moti Singh and Lajyawati were also blessed with six daughters namely Krishna Devi, Asha Devi, Usha Devi, Darshana Kumari, Urmala RSA No. 1571 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Devi and Shukla Devi. After the death of Moti Singh, plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing No. 69 of 1980 against Lajyawati and the children of Moti Singh from his second wife. The said suit was decided on 23.12.1980 and a decree for exclusive possession as owner of the suit land measuring 30 Kanals was passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, the entries were not correctly made in the revenue record. The entries in the revenue record, showing the plaintiff as joint owner to the extent of 1/20 share in the land measuring 274 Kanals 17 Marlas, were wrong. Defendant No.1, in his written statement and counter claim, alleged that Moti Singh was owner of the suit land to the extent of ½ share. The earlier decree was not binding on the answering defendant as no notice had been issued to him in the said suit. The revenue record had been sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. The answering defendant had purchased the share of some of the natural heirs of Moti Singh for a valuable consideration. Plaintiff had forgone his interest in the remaining property left by Moti Singh as per decree dated 9.1.1980. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit is time barred and is bad for non- joinder? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is having no share in Khasra No. 37/21 (8 Kanals) in village Chhauni Kalan? OPD 4. Whether the counter claim is time barred and is hit RSA No. 1571 of 2010 (O&M) -3- by estopple? OPP 5. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2005 decreed the suit as well as the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff through his legal representatives preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present appeal, the question that requires consideration is as to whether the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 was liable to be decreed. The material document in this regard is the decree passed in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff. The said decree dated 23.12.1980 in civil suit No. 69 of 1980 has been relied upon by the plaintiff while basing his claim in the present suit for declaration. Copy of the decree has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The contents of the decree read as under:- “The parties reached a compromise and they have filed a written compromise Ext.-C1. The statements of the parties have also been recorded and they have admitted the compromise Ext.-C1 as correct. In the terms of the compromise I pass a decree for exclusive possession as owner of the land measuring 30 Kanals bearing Khewat No. 6 Khatauni No. 12, Kila No. 45/15(8-0), 46/1(8-0), 4/2/1(2-0), Khatauni RSA No. 1571 of 2010 (O&M) -4- No. 13 Kila No. 45/5/2(4-0), 45/6(8-0), situated in village Chhauni Kalan in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 to 9. The suit of the plaintiff against the defendants No. 10 to 13 is hereby dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff in respect of the land except which the decree has been passed is dismissed. The plaintiff will have no concern with the other land except the land regarding which the decree has been passed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the judicial record room.” Thus, as per the above decree, the parties had arrived at a compromise. It was agreed that the plaintiff Surjit Singh son of Moti Singh from his first marriage would be exclusive owner in possession of 30 Kanals of land situated in village Chhauni Kalan. It was further observed that the plaintiff will have no concern with the other land except the land regarding which the decree had been passed. In these circumstances, the plaintiff Surjit Singh could not be allowed any claim on the property of Moti Singh apart from the decree passed in his favour qua 30 Kanals of land. Therefore, the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Gurpreet