Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 128 (HP)

Sant Ram (since Deceased) Through Lrs v. Dilu

2018-01-10

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Cmp(M) No.1635 of 2017. Heard. Allowed. The name of appellant Sant Ram, who died on 24th July, 2017, is ordered to be substituted and in his place his legal represented as mentioned in para-4 of the application are ordered to be brought on record. Application stands disposed of. 2. Amended memo of parties accompanying the application is ordered to be taken on record. CMP No.724 of 2018. 3. Be registered. Heard. Allowed. The name of respondent No.8 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents, subject to all just exceptions. CMP No.728 of 2018. 4. The parties have amicably settled the matter before the learned Mediator and they have further filed a compromise deed wherein the parties have amicably settled the dispute on the following terms and conditions:- "a) That the appellants/applicants are in possession of Khasra No.2607/42 as also Khasra No.2606/42 on the spot. So far as Khasra No.2607/42 is concerned, the said suit land is not the subject matter of dispute. The subject matter of dispute pertains to Khasra No.2606/42. The respondents/applicants to ensure that the matter is resolved amicably have made an offer to the appellants/applicants to the effect that out of Khasra No.2606/42 measuring 381.97 sq. meters and the adjoining Khasra No.43 measuring 156.26 sq. meters, thereby totaling 538.23 sq. meters, the respondents/applicants will give 2.00 biswas of land adjacent and abutting Khasra No.2607/42 to the appellants/applicants which land will have a frontage of 3 meters in width and will be 21 meters in length as per tatima, copy of which is appended along with the present application as Annexure A-1. Copy of the jamabandi is also appended as Annexure A-2 to the application. The Tatima (Annexure A-1) is the same and similar to the tatima which is marked as Mark-X in the report of the mediator. Copy of the jamabandi is also appended as Annexure A-2 to the application. The Tatima (Annexure A-1) is the same and similar to the tatima which is marked as Mark-X in the report of the mediator. b) That the parties further agree that the said area of 2.00 biswas which will be given by respondents/applicants to the appellants/applicants will be mutated in the name of legal representatives 1(d) Raj Kumar and legal representative 1(e) Ramesh Kumar on account of the fact that the Legal representative 1(b) , the other son of Sher Singh has got sufficient land and the mother and another brothers and sisters, who are arrayed as legal representatives 1(a) to 1(c) and 1(f) to 1(h) do not want the said land and with the endeavour to rehabilitate the said two brothers will have no concern of 2.00 biswas of land which can be mutated in the name of appellants/applicants LR 1(d) and LR 1(e) and the said Raj Kumar and Ramesh Kumar will be construed to be owner in possession of two biswas of land so carved out from Khasra No.2606/42 to the extent of 2.00 biswas of land and the revenue entries in this regard qua ownership and possession be made in their name for which purpose the affidavits can be taken for effecting such entries, with respect to Khasra No. 2607/42, the revenue entries will stand as they are. c) That the appellants/applicants further agree that with respect to the remaining land comprised of Khasra No.2606/42 after excluding 2.00 biswas of land, remaining land comprised of Khasra No.2606/42 and 43 as per jamabandi Annexure A-2 can be mutated in the name of respondents/applicants. It has also been revealed that during the pendency of the case respondents 1 to 8 have already sold the land to one Smt. Champa Devi D/O Sh. Chet Ram R/O Village and Post Office Kaned, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and Smt. Anjana Chaudhary W/O Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary R/O Bhaun Badi, P.O. Kahlod, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. vide Sale deed No.311 dated 29.11.2014. The copy of the sale deed is also appended herewith as Annexure A-3 to the application. Chet Ram R/O Village and Post Office Kaned, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and Smt. Anjana Chaudhary W/O Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary R/O Bhaun Badi, P.O. Kahlod, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. vide Sale deed No.311 dated 29.11.2014. The copy of the sale deed is also appended herewith as Annexure A-3 to the application. The appellants/applicants have no objection in case the names of said vendors namely Smt. Champa Devi and Anjana Chaudhary, are shown as the owner in possession with respect to the said Khasra numbers and the revenue entries are also effected in the revenue record in their names as per the Sale deed dated 29.11.2014, for which purpose the appellants/applicants as also respondents/applicants will have no objections. d) That so far as the proforma respondent No.9, Smt. Bhuli Devi is concerned, she has represented through her son Sh.Vineet, who is General Power of attorney that the said proforma respondent No.9 has no concern with the suit land and as such he has no objection to the compromise. e) That it has also been mutually agreed inter-se the parties that the appellants/applicants who had developed the land comprised in Khasra No.2606/42 by raising of danga/retaining wall/boundary wall and who had also planted certain fruit trees will be free to lift the stones as also take the timber of the trees for which the respondents/applicants as also vendors have no objections whatsoever. f) That the parties have no objection, in case the revenue entries are affected by the Tehsildar in the absence of any of the parties as per the compromise and appropriate directions be given by this Hon''ble Court to the revenue officer to enter and incorporate the mutation as per the compromise in the revenue record. g) That the respondents/ applicants 1 to 8 through their General Power of attorney Sh. Arjun Singh has filed cases against the appellants/applicants before the competent courts in District Mandi and all such cases which have been filed inter-se the parties will be withdrawn by them mutually on the compromise being effected and the applicants jointly re-assure each other that all such cases will be withdrawn in view of the present compromise." 5. In terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the aforesaid terms. In terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the aforesaid terms. The order of the learned Mediator dated 04.01.2018 and the contents of para 6(a) to (g) of this application along with tatima Annexure A-1 shall form part and parcel of the decree. 6. Since the appeal is being disposed of on the basis of the compromise, it is made clear that in default it shall be open to any of the parties, irrespective of the fact whether they are appellants or respondents, to enforce the compromise as has been entered into between them. 7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 8. Before parting, it is made clear that in the event of a copy of this order being presented before the Revenue Officer, he shall enter necessary mutation within a period of four weeks from such presentation.