Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2652 (RAJ)

Pradeep Nehra S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Nehra v. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Shera Ram

2017-12-01

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar, whereby while allowing the application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 he has directed the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each to the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal and further ordered for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 17.06.2010 executed by the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal in favour of petitioner-Pradeep Nehra, who happened to be the son of respondent No. 3-Kalu Ram. 2. This Court while issuing notices to the respondents on 28.11.2013 has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar to the extent of declaring the sale-deed illegal, executed by the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal in favour of the petitioner-Pradeep Nehra. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal and his sons i.e respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have amicably settled their dispute and pursuant to that the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal moved an application dated 19.07.2017 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by it. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar without passing any order on the said application has ordered for consigning the said application to record. 4. Now an application (APPLW No. 6305/2017) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-Pradeep Nehra to decide this writ petition on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at between the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal and his sons i.e respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Hemant Jain appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and Mr. Manish Dadhich appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also stated that the family dispute between the father and sons has already been amicably resolved, hence, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar be set aside. 6. Mr. Hemant Jain and Mr. Manish Dadhich undertake that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each to their father i.e respondent No. 1-Ram Lal till he is alive. 7. Ganganagar be set aside. 6. Mr. Hemant Jain and Mr. Manish Dadhich undertake that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each to their father i.e respondent No. 1-Ram Lal till he is alive. 7. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sri. Ganganagar is set aside. 8. However, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- each to the respondent No. 1-Ram Lal till he is alive. 9. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 10. The application (APPLW No. 6305/2017) as well as the stay petition also stand disposed of.