1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2882 of 1999 (O&M) and Cross-objections No.5-C of 2000 Date of Decision: 08.11.2011 *** Murti Devi & Ors. .. Appellants VS. M/s Prithvi Nath Gian Chand .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Balwinder Singh Jolly, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Application No. 12139-C of 2011 and 12142-C of 2001 are allowed and the applicants are impleaded as legal representatives of Gian Chand respondent in the appeal and cross objector-plaintiff in the cross-objections, subject to all just exceptions. Civil Misc. Application No. 12695-C of 2011 is allowed and compromise (Annexure A-3) and affidavits (Annexures A-4 to A-7) are taken on record. This order will dispose of the regular second appeal as well as cross objections filed therein, since the same have been preferred against one and the same judgment dated 28.11.1998. It is apparent from the records that Gian Chand filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of agreement dated 27.11.1987 vide which Kadam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present appellants agreed to sell land measuring 16 kanals for a sale consideration of Rs. 49,000/- and 2 received earnest money of Rs. 30,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.11.1988 on payment of balance sale consideration. However, the defendant failed to perform his part of contract. The suit was contested by the defendant by denying execution of any agreement to sell. After the contest, learned trial Court decreed the suit and directed the legal representatives of the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff firm after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,000/- within two months. Dis-satisfied with the same, the appellants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court below and by dint of judgment dated 28.11.1998 instead of specific performance of agreement dated 27.11.1987, money decree to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- i.e. double the earnest money of i.e. Rs.60,000/-, with costs and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization was passed. It was also clarified that the liability of the legal representatives of Kadam Singh would be only to the extent of property of Kadam Singh, including the suit property, inherited by them. Dis-satisfied with the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid regular second appeal while the plaintiff Gian Chand filed the cross-objections, impugning the judgment rendered by the appellate Court below. During pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into settlement and applications have been filed by the appellants for disposal of the appeal in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. As per compromise the legal heirs of the plaintiff, who have been impleaded as respondents, have been paid Rs.3 lacs and the parties have agreed that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance be dismissed, by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Compromise (Annexure A-3), affidavits of Parmod Kumar, Sajjan Kumar, Sangeeta Rani and Savita Rani sons and daughters respectively of Gian Chand (since deceased) have been placed on record respectively as Annexures A-4 to A- 7, which have been taken on record. In the affidavits the factum of compromise has been reiterated and they have sworn that they have no objection if the suit is dismissed. 3 In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the instant appeal is allowed, thereby setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. The parties are bound by the compromise (Annexure A-3), which shall form the part of the decree sheet. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 08,2011 Jiten