Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 770 (HP)

Atul Kumar v. Sandeep Singh Bedi

2019-06-25

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Omp No. 161 of 2019 Instant civil suit having been filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.6.2013, qua the land situate in Village Oel, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh baring Khewat No. 95 min., Khatauni No. 196 min., Khasra No. 2380/1, measuring 0.15.86 Hectares as also land measuring 0.10.71 Hectares bearing 715/812 share of land measuring 0.27.13 Hectares comprised in Khewat No. 94 min., Khatauni No. 195 min., Khasra No. 2379 and land measuring 0.4.39 Hectares, bearing 439/1483 share of land measuring 0.14.83 Hectares bearing Khewat No. 174 min., Khatauni No. 333 min., Khasra No. 2384 and land measuring 0.05.51 Hectares bearing Khewat No. 95 min., Khatauni No. 197 min., and Khasra No. 2382/1. Further land situated at Village Tatehra, Tehsil Amb, District Una, measuring 0.73.81 Hectares bearing Khewat No. 55 min., Khatauni No. 77 min., Khasra No. 1616 and land measuring 0.31.90 Hectares bearing 1/2 share of land measuring 0.63.80 Hectares, bearing Khewat No. 54, Khatauni No. 76, Khasra Nos. 1614 and 1615 and, land measuring 0.24.42 Hectares, bearing Khewat No. 35 min., Khatauni No. 52 min., and Khasra Nos. 1548, 1549, 1550 and 1551 as per Jamabandi for the years 2005-06 (total measuring 1.66.60 Hectares equivalent to 43.38 Kanals, of which the defendant No.1 is the owner and had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 10.6.2013 and which had been acted upon by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2, vide sale deeds No. 31 to 53 (total No. 23, registered on 19.9.2017) in the office of Sub Registrar, Gagret at Kaloh, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, may be declared null and void being collusive. Plaintiff also prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and/or encumbering the suit land in any manner, or creating third party rights either themselves or through their agents, assignees etc. and for execution of registered sale deeds by defendant in favour of plaintiff or by an officer of the court. 3. Plaintiff also prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and/or encumbering the suit land in any manner, or creating third party rights either themselves or through their agents, assignees etc. and for execution of registered sale deeds by defendant in favour of plaintiff or by an officer of the court. 3. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, bearing OMP No. 407 of 2017 and accordingly, vide order dated 15.12.2017, this court restrained the defendants from transferring, selling, encumbering or changing the nature of the suit land or creating third party rights. 4. Subsequently on 6.12.2018, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, made a statement before this court that as per instructions imparted to him, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably and as such, matter came to be adjourned enabling the parties to place on record compromise, if any, enabling this court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff, while inviting attention of this Court to OMP No. 161 of 2019, which has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with S.151 CPC, contended that the parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, present suit can be decreed as having been compromised in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the compromise application, referred to herein above. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, learned counsel for the defendants, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, contended that since the application under the aforesaid provisions, stands filed jointly on behalf of all the parties, prayer having been made by learned Senior Advocate for passing compromise decree in terms of the terms and conditions of the compromise, can be accepted. 6. Careful perusal of averments contained in the application, reveals that defendant No.2 has agreed for cancellation of sale deeds bearing Nos. 31 to 53 registered on 19.9.2017 and after cancellation of said sale deeds, she shall have no objection for registration of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement to sell dated 10.6.2013. 6. Careful perusal of averments contained in the application, reveals that defendant No.2 has agreed for cancellation of sale deeds bearing Nos. 31 to 53 registered on 19.9.2017 and after cancellation of said sale deeds, she shall have no objection for registration of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement to sell dated 10.6.2013. As per agreed terms, defendant No.2 has agreed that after cancellation of sale deeds, defendant No.1 can execute sale deed(s) in favour of the plaintiff, in furtherance of the agreement to sell dated 10.6.2013. 7. This court, solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the averments contained in the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, also recorded statements of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No.2, on oath, which have been taken on record and made part of the case file. 8. Averments contained in the application, which is otherwise supported by affidavits of the parties to the lis as well as statements having been made by the parties, clearly suggest that the parties have entered into compromise and as such, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant application, which is accordingly allowed. Civil Suit No. 69 of 2017 9. In view of the orders passed in OMP No. 161 of 2019, suit having been filed by the plaintiff is decreed in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the compromise application, (Ext. C1), which will form part and parcel of the decree. sale deeds No. 31 to 53 (total No. 23, registered on 19.9.2017) in the office of Sub Registrar, Gagret at Kaloh, District Una, Himachal Pradesh are declared null and void. The suit stands decreed in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of and interim directions if any, are vacated, in view of the suit having been decreed. 10. Registry to draw the decree sheet accordingly. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled for the refund of court fee, in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.