Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 340 of 1996. Decided on: December 7, 2011. Purshottam Ram and Others. …… Appellants. Versus Gian Chand and others. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate for the appellants with Jai Chand for himself and GPA of appellant No.1 Parshottam Ram, Smt. Shakunti and Ved Prakash for himself and GPA for the LRs of deceased Om Parkash. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the respondents alongwith respondent Gian Chand for himself and GPA for respondents Mehar Chand, Uttam Chand, Dev Raj Kusum Lata, Subhash Chand, Ajay Kumar, Tej Singh, Kashmir Singh, Jai Bahadur, Chamba Devi, Suman Kanta and Ravan @ Ravinder Kumar. Respondent No.8 Ravan @ Ravinder Kumar in person. Ms. Shweta Julka, Advocate-Court Guardian, for respondents No.5 (ii), 5(iii) and 6(b). Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): C.M.P. No. 1101/2011. Parties to the appeal have amicably settled the matter between them. They have also moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by their respective affidavits; the application vide Paras 3 and 4 contains the terms and - 2 - conditions of the compromise annexed with the revenue records. Since Master Mukesh, Master Manish LRs of deceased respondent No. 5 and Manjeet LR of deceased respondent No. 6 are minors as such leave of this court is sought to enter into a compromise as per terms and conditions mentioned in paras 3 and 4 of the application duly certified by the Court guardian Ms. Shweta Julka, Advocate and is also supported by her affidavit. Her statement has also been recorded separately and be kept on record. The compromise which is being entered is certified by her to be for the benefit and in the interest of the minors aforesaid. 2. Shri K. D. Sood, learned counsel for the remaining respondents as also Shri Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate for the defendants/appellants also stated that the proposed compromise is for the benefit and interest of the minors. 3. After hearing the Advocate Court-guardian and on going through the nature of the suit which was filed in the year 1966 for possession and damages by the plaintiffs/ respondents and was decreed for possession but dismissed for damages and the decree was upheld in appeal by the first appellate Court which is under challenge by the defendants in present Regular Second - 3 - Appeal. The plaintiffs could not get the possession of the suit land despite the decree in their favour. By the proposed compromise, plaintiffs, including the minors will get the possession of suit Khasras as mentioned in paras 3 and 4 of the application and reap the fruits of the decree passed in their favour. Therefore, in my opinion, the proposed compromise is for the benefit and interest of the minors aforesaid. Therefore, leave is granted to the Court guardian to enter into a compromise for and on behalf of the minors with respect to the subject matter now in appeal. Accordingly the application is allowed and I proceed to record the compromise effected inter se the parties. RSA No.340/1996 & CMP No. 1100/2011. 4. The parties to the present appeal, as already stated above have amicably settled the dispute by affecting compromise. The minors through their Court Guardian have been granted leave to enter into the compromise as aforesaid. Statements of S/Shri Jai Chand for himself and GPA of appellant No.1 Parshottam Ram, Shakunti @ Shakuntla, Ved Parkash for himself and also GPA for LRs of deceased Om Parkash have been recorded, which are placed on record. - 4 - 5. As per the statement and terms and conditions of the compromise contained in paras 3 and 4 of the application (CMP No.1100 of 2011), the defendants- appellants shall be treated and declared to be as owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 439, 440/1, 443 and 444/1, Kita-4, total measuring 00-52-44 and the plaintiffs-respondents are declared owners of the suit property measuring in Khasra Nos. 440/2, 444/2, 445, 460, 461 and 462 Kitas-6, total measuring 00-78-69 and Khata No. 113/87, Khatauni No.161 and 141, Khasra No.459 measuring 00-20-99 as per jamabandi for the year 2008- 2009 of Mauja Gaggal, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. The plaintiffs may execute the decree and shall get the actual possession of the said property by filing execution petition. The defendants-appellants will have no right, title or interest in the same. Plaintiff’s suit qua Khasra Nos. 439, 440/1, 443 and 444/1 Kitas-4, total measuring 00-52-44 shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 6. Since the compromise aforesaid is duly recorded and it is proved to the satisfaction of this Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly by a lawful compromise in writing and signed by the parties and also by their respective counsel including the Court-Guardian, therefore, a compromise decree, inter-se the parties is - 5 - hereby passed as per their statements, in the terms and conditions contained in paras 3 and 4 of the application (CMP No.1100/2011), which shall form part of the compromise decree. 7. In view of the above, decree passed in Civil Suit No.38/66 decided on 24.2.1979, which was upheld in appeal by the first appellate Court, stands accordingly modified. The appeal stands disposed of. 8. The application(s), if any, pending shall also be disposed of in view of the above compromise. December 7, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (cm/pds) Judge.