SAC 17/2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Civil] No.17/2001 Mst. Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs. Raja Amar Singh & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/09/2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. KOTHARI Mr. Anil Goyal, appellant No.3, present in person None present for the respondents *** Shri Anil Goyal, appellant No.3, S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand, is present in person and he has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise application filed before the Court on 04/01/2001 signed by Smt.Kamla Devi W/o Shri Gulab Chand and respondent No.5. Behari Lal whose signatures have been identified and attested by his Counsel Shri Ravi Yadav, Advocate. The application came up for consideration before the Court on 02/02/2001 and the Court after having noticed the application admitted the appeal and issued notices to all the respondents. While noting the fact regarding the compromise application, it was observed that an application for recording the compromise entered into between the appellant and the respondent No.5 has been filed and that it would be proper to issue notice to all the respondents to the appeal before recording the said compromise. SAC 17/2001 [2] Service upon all the respondents has been affected and vide order dated 22/07/2008 it has been recorded while allowing the application submitted by the appellant to delete the names of respondent Nos.6 to 12 from the array of respondents. The aforesaid respondent Nos.6 to 12 are legal representatives of one of the objectors Shri Kamruddin on whose behalf objections came to be filed. As would be evident from the judgment impugned, dated January 5, 2001 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.142/1972, Gulab chand & Ors. Vs. Raja Amar Singh & Ors., in Para 4 of the same, the application submitted by the legal representatives of Kamruddin before the learned Single Judge on 07/04/1993 for being impleaded as parties was allowed vide order dated 14/10/1993. In the application submitted on behalf of legal representatives of deceased Kamruddin, it had been alleged that Kamruddin had purchased part of the disputed property from one of the co-sharers. Before this Court it was stated in the application No.5351/2008 that the respondent Nos.6 to 12 who are legal representatives of Kamruddin have vacated the premises and have no interest in the litigation and therefore, their names may be ordered to be deleted. The prayer was allowed and names of respondent Nos.6 to 12 were deleted. SAC 17/2001 [3] We have heard Shri Anil Goyal, the appellant No.3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.5 or the respondents No.1 to 4. The appellants have only prayed for their compromise application to be allowed, inasmuch as, the dispute between the appellants and Beharilal son of Shri Ram Pratap, the respondent No.5, has been resolved as per the terms of the compromise mentioned in para No.3 of the application. The appellant and Behari Lal, the respondent No.5 have agreed as follows:- “(3) यह Ǒक ौीमती कमला देवी Ʈारा एकलपीठ मɅ तकासमे के दावे के ǒवǾƨ कȧ गई अपील खाǐरज हो जाने के बाद अब ौीमती कमला देवी ने यह डȣ.बी.ःपेशल अपील ूःतुत कर रखी है जहां तक अपीलाÛÒस एवं रेःपोडेÛट नं.5 का सàबÛध है, दोनɉ ने आपसी सहमित से अब राजीनामा इस ूकार कर िलया है: (अ) यह Ǒक ौीमती कमला देवी ने नाथू लाल पुऽ ौी ूहलाद दास अमवाल से जो सàपǒƣ ǒवबय पऽ Ǒदनांक 6.3.1974 के Ʈारा खरȣद ली है, उस सàपǒƣ पर ौीमती कमला देवी बदःतूर हःब साǒबक काǒबज रहेगी और रेःपɉडेÛट नं.5 को अपीलांट ौीमती कमला देवी Ʈारा Ǒदनांक 6.3.1974 को खरȣदे गये ǒवबय पऽ से ूाƯ सàपǒƣ के बाबत भǒवंय मɅ कोई उळ करने का अिधकार नहȣं होगा। अपीलांट ौीमती कमला देवी इस ूकार सàपǒƣ जो तकासमɅ कȧ Ǒडबȧ Ǒदनांक 5.11.1971 के साथ लगे हये नÈश मɅ भाग नं ु . 61 व 62 मय जीना,चौक, अÛय मुँतरका हक के हकूक पर काǒबज है आगे भी काǒबज रहे, रेःपोडेÛट नं.5 या उसके वाǐरसान इस सàपǒƣ कȧ बाबत अपीलांट या उसके वाǐरसान से भǒवंय मɅ कोई दखलंदाजी नहȣं करेगा। (ब) यह Ǒक खचा[ मुकदमा फरȣकैन अपना-अपना बदा[ँत करɅगे। (स) यह Ǒक इस राजीनामɅ कȧ वजह से रेःपोडेÛट नं.5 Ʈारा खरȣदȣ गई अÛय सàपǒƣ के अिधकारɉ पर कोई ूितकूल ूभाव नहȣं पड़ेगा।" SAC 17/2001 [4] It has been agreed that this appeal be decided in the light of the above terms of the compromise entered into between the appellants and the respondent No.5. It was stated that since the dispute is only between the appellants and the respondent No.5 relating to above-mentioned portion of the property which is said to have been sold by the decree-holders in the original suit to Behari Lal vide the sale-deed dated 1st July, 1971, which had also been purchased by the appellants vide sale-deed dated 6th March, 1974. The dispute between Behari Lal and the appellants stands resolved by the terms of the aforesaid compromise. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid limited extent in terms of the compromise filed before the court on 04.01.2001, which is signed by Smt.Kamla Devi and Behari Lal, the respondent No.5. The application submitted by the appellant also stands allowed. [S.S.KOTHARI],J. [DALIP SINGH],J. FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.17SAC2001 09-09.doc