Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 336 (HP)

Surya Parkash v. GEETA DEVI

2013-04-23

SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT SURINDER Singh, J. The matter stands settled by mutual agreement reduced in writing Ex A-1. The statements of parties except Susheela Devi were recorded on 17.4.2013 and the matter was adjourned for today. Reference to the above orders, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the affidavit of Shri Ravi Chand in support of his earlier statement Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? recorded on 17.4.2013 which is marked as Ext. A2/A and taken on record. 2. PROFORMA respondent Smt. Susheela Devi is present. Her statement has been recorded. The terms and conditions as contained in compromise Ext. A-1 have been read over and explained to her in vernacular language. She admits the terms and conditions of the compromise with the appellants as well as the respondents and another proforma respondent. In addition, she also filed her affidavit Annexure Ext. R3/A whereby she stated that the terms and conditions of the compromise were also drawn at her instance which she admitted to be correct. Earlier statements of appellants as well as of the respondents, including proforma respondents Bhavna Devi were recorded. Heard and gone through the record. 3. AS a matter of fact, respondents Geeta Devi and Tara Devi had filed a suit against the appellants and proforma respondents seeking declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the estate left by Shri Amar Singh by way of adverse possession and challenged the Will in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 Surya Prakash and Ravi Chand. The learned trial Court held that the Will was not proved and the plaintiffs were declared owners by way of adverse possession which decree was upheld in appeal, against which the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. 4. DURING the course of the proceedings in this appeal, after its admission, the parties have arrived at a compromise and an application CMP No. 399 of 2013 was moved under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording compromise whereby the properties owned and possessed by Shri Amar Singh aforesaid in village Jamsai/226, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, comprised under khata khatauni No. 76 min, 143 & 144, khasra Nos. 2146/1,2150, kita 2, land measuring 0-20-03 hectares and khasra number 2123, 2124, 2125, 2142, 2143, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2149, 2152, kita 10 land measuring 0-64-12 hectares would be distributed between the appellants and the respondents in equal shares, that is to say, the appellants/defendants along with proforma defendants will get half share and the rest of the half will be owned and possessed by the respondents/plaintiffs whereas the land sold by both the parties after 8.4.1992 would be deducted from their respective shares in the suit property and also that the parties shall not file any fresh suit, application or other proceedings with respect to the subject mater of this compromise. The aforesaid compromise is supported by the affidavits of Shri Surya Parkash, Geeta Devi Bhavna Devi and Smt. Susheela Devi. Statements of Smt. Geeta Devi for herself and on behalf of Smt. Tara Devi, being the holder of her Power of Attorney, Bhavna Devi, Ravi Chand and Surya Parkash. Their statements were recorded on 17.4.2013. Since Smt Susheela Devi was not present on that day, as such the matter was listed for her presence and recording her statement today. Now her statement has been separately recorded. She accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise Ext. A-1 to which she admits it to be correct. She also filed her affidavit Annexure A3/A. 5. AFTER going through the entire matter and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly by a lawful agreement/ compromise Ext. A-1. Therefore, the compromise decree in the above terms be and is hereby passed. The compromise deed Ex. A-1 shall form part of the decree which be accordingly prepared. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below stand set aside. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.