Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1665 (HP)

Satpal Singh v. Raksha Pal Kaundal

2019-11-06

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, it is not necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they had purchased a residential plot in the area of village Rakh Ghansol from predecessor-in-title of defendants No. 4 to 7, deceased Shri Fazal Deen son of Shri Wazir Deen through different sale deeds and at that time, the owner Shri Fazal Deen kept passage to the said plots, which is subject matter of this suit bearing tatima Khasra No. 431/257/2/2/2/2/2/2/3 (0-2 biswa) and Khasra No. 427/256/2/2/2/2/3 (0-1 biswa), presently bearing Khasra Nos. 579/431/257 (0-1 biswa) comprised in Kh/Kht Nos. 149/156 and remaining part of the passage 0-1 biswa out of land presently beaing Khasra Nos. 580/431/257/2 and 0-1 biswa out of land presently bearing Khasra No. 563/427/256 comprised in Kh/Kht Nos. 12 min/17 min, situated in village Rakh Ghansol, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. as described in copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02. Therefore, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 were wrong null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have amended their plaint and sought relief of mandatory injunction for restraining the defendants from raising the construction over the suit land. 2. Defendants No. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was averred that the plaintiffs might have purchased the property through different sale deeds but it was denied for want of knowledge that Shri Fazal Deen i.e. predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 4 had kept the passage through suit property. 3. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeals preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. It is the defendant alone who has preferred the present appeal and as observed above, the same now stands compromised between the parties. 4. 3. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeals preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. It is the defendant alone who has preferred the present appeal and as observed above, the same now stands compromised between the parties. 4. As regards Civil Revision No. 123 of 2018, the same is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Chamba, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) whereby the petitioner was ordered to be sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of three months and the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. 5. On 30.04.2019, this Court passed the following orders:- Both these cases are being amicably settled by the parties on the following terms and conditions: 1. The petitioner, Satpal Singh, respondent No.1 Raksha Pal Kaundal and other respondents are neigbours and in order to have cordial relations with themselves, the petitioner is ready and willing to provide 9 feet wide path between his residential house, Khasra No. 579/431/257 and the plot of DFO/Range Officer, which will lead to the residential house of respondent No.1, Raksha Pal Kaundal and other residents. 2. The petitioner will ensure said 9 feet wide path on the spot between his residential house, Khasra No. 579/431/257 and plot of DFO/Range Officer and in case path is found to be less than 9 feet in width, the petitioner will provide said path from his residential house and Khasra No. 579/431/257 or by purchase of adjacent land to ensure the complete path of 9 feet width leading to the house of Raksha Pal Kaundal and other residents. 2. As requested by the parties, the Tehsildar Nalagarh is directed to demarcate the land so as to ensure that there is a path of 9 feet in width between the residential house of Satpal Singh, Khasra No. 579/431/257 and plot of DFO/Range Officer. In case there is any deficiency in area/width of the path, leading to the house of respondent No.1 Raksha Pal Kaundal and other residents, the Tehsildar shall suggest as to how the shortfall can be made good from the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 579/431/257. 3. In case there is any deficiency in area/width of the path, leading to the house of respondent No.1 Raksha Pal Kaundal and other residents, the Tehsildar shall suggest as to how the shortfall can be made good from the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 579/431/257. 3. The Tehsildar will visit the spot at 10.00 A.M. on 29.5.2019 and submit his report to this Court within fortnight of such visit. 4. The registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Tehsildar through post as well as FAX. 5. Both the cases are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any. No order as to costs. 6. For compliance report, list on 18.6.2019. Copy dasti. 6. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the Tehsildar, Nalagarh visited the spot and demarcated the land, however, the respondents had certain reservations regarding the demarcation so conducted. 7. Thereafter, on 30.10.2019, fresh demarcation was conducted under the orders of the Tehsildar, copy whereof has been placed on record as Mark X . 8. The parties through learned Counsel jointly state that they have no objection to the demarcation conducted on the spot and the appeal as also the revision petition being disposed of on the basis of the demarcation report Mark X . 9. In view of the demarcation report Mark X , the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are accordingly modified. The appeal disposed of with a direction to the appellant/petitioner to keep open the path as reflected in demarcation report Mark X , as settled between the parties for all times to come. The demarcation report shall form part and parcel of the decree. It is further made clear that in the event of non-compliance of this order, it shall be open to aggrieved party irrespective of whether it is the plaintiffs or defendant to approach this Court for the redressal of the grievances. 10. The demarcation report shall form part and parcel of the decree. It is further made clear that in the event of non-compliance of this order, it shall be open to aggrieved party irrespective of whether it is the plaintiffs or defendant to approach this Court for the redressal of the grievances. 10. In view of the parties have arrived at a compromise, therefore, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, District Solan in CMP No. 219/6 of 2008 whereby he sentenced the petitioner to civil imprisonment for a period of three months in an application filed by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and order dated 14.04.2018 whereby the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, camp at Nalagarh affirmed the said order, are set aside. 11. The Civil Revision as also Appeal are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs.