RSA No. 1458 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1458 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.01.2011 Dharampal and another .....Appellants Versus Nanar Ram .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are in exclusive possession of the suit land. Defendant had no concern with the suit land and in collusion with the revenue staff had got mutation No. 764 attested on 12.6.2004 in his favour. No notice was issued to the plaintiffs at the time of change of original mutation. Defendant in his written statement has stated that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/6th share being co-owner. The suit titled Bahadur etc. vs. Dharamchand etc. was pending before the Civil Court and the same was decided as RSA No. 1458 of 2010 (O&M) 2 per the compromise between the parties on 9.12.1974. As per the compromise, plaintiffs and defendant were handed over the land to the extent of 1/4th share out of the land measuring 91 kanals 9 marlas. The name of defendant had, thus, been rightly incorporated in the original record vide mutation No. 764 dated 12.6.2004,on the basis of the said compromise. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit?OPP 2. Whether the suit is beyond limitation?OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joining of necessary parties?OPD 4. Relief” The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2009 and, hence, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the civil suit titled Bahadur etc. vs. Dharamchand etc. was decided by the Civil Court as per compromise between the parties on 9.12.1974. Defendant was beneficiary of the compromise. The present plaintiffs were represented by their counsel and the compromise was duly signed by RSA No. 1458 of 2010 (O&M) 3 their counsel on their behalf. Exhibit D3 is the copy of the statement made by the plaintiffs along with Bahadur Singh and Thawar on 27.11.1974 to the effect that they have arrived at a compromise as per their freewill. Thus, the plaintiffs have admitted the correctness of the compromise dated 27.11.1974. Although the defendant had not signed the compromise, though his name was mentioned in the compromise, yet, this does not lead to the inference that the compromise cannot be relied upon qua parties. The counsel for the plaintiffs had duly signed the compromise and the plaintiffs had also admitted in their statement Exhibit D3 qua correctness of the compromise. Thus, the plaintiffs are duly bound by the compromise dated 27.11.1974. Defendant is also beneficiary of the said compromise and cannot be denied the benefit merely because his signatures do not appear on the compromise. Learned District Judge,thus, rightly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina) Judge January 12, 2011 arya