R.S.A. No. 3316 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3316 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 28, 2011 Smt. Malti Devi and others …..Appellants Vs. Smt.Nirmala and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the applicant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff- Nirmala and her minor daughter had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 289/95 dated June 6, 1995 in the Court of Sh.Jagdeep Jain, the then Civil Jude, Kurukshetra, in case titled Malti Devi Vs. Usha Devi was illegal and void . Suit of the plaintiff- respondents was dismissed by the trial Court R.S.A. No. 3316 of 2010 (O&M) [2] holding that the plaintiff- respondent Nirmala was not owner in possession over the suit property and that the suit was barred by time. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. The plaintiff- respondent had put in appearance in person in the Court and stated that she wanted to withdraw her suit. The decree had been suffered by Inderjit Singh on June 6, 1995 but he married to the respondent only in the year 1997. The lower Appellate Court had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent as prayed for. The plaintiff- respondent appeared in the Court and suffered a statement that she wants to withdraw her suit regarding the declaration that judgment and decree dated June 6, 1995 is illegal and not binding on her rights. The property in dispute seems to have further been purchased by applicant in C.M.No. 2868-C of 2011 who prayed for adding the applicant M/s Sumitra builders and Developers Private Limited as one of the appellants having purchased the property on November 2, 2006. I have considered the application of M/s Sumitra Builders and Developers Private Limited and taken into consideration the statement of the plaintiff - respondent that she wants to withdraw her suit having amicably compromised the matter. Misc. application No. 2868-C of 2011 cannot be allowed, as the alienation of property during the pendency of the case is always subject to the final decision. Whether the applicant is bonafide purchaser or not, cannot be determined in the second appeal. The R.S.A. No. 3316 of 2010 (O&M) [3] application for impleading the applicant as one of the appellants is thus dismissed as not maintainable. So far as the plaintiff- respondent whose suit had been decreed by the lower Appellate Court is concerned, is ready to waive of her rights in the decree and wants to withdraw the civil suit. She has admitted that the judgment and decree dated June 6, 1995 will not affect her rights and she does not want to challenge the same and she can be permitted to withdraw her claim. The judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff- respondent is permitted to be withdrawn. Plaintiff was married to the seller of the property two years after the decree. She waived of her rights. Plaintiff- respondent is permitted to withdraw her suit. Her statement has been recorded in the Court. The judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court dated May 31, 2010 is set aside on the basis of the statement made by the plaintiff- respondent. She being natural guardian had been granted permission to safeguard the interest of her minor daughter. The judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dated August 21, 2009 will remain operative and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is hereby set aside on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff- Nirmala made in the Court. Misc. application No. 3951 of 2011 and the main appeal is disposed of. March 28, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE