ORDER 1. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2011, whereby the suit of specific performance of contract filed against defendant No.6 has been partly allowed. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for the cancellation of sale deed dated 17.3.2008 executed in favour of defendant No.6 and decreed the suit by directing defendant No.1 to 4 to return the amount of Rs.9,42,500/- along with 9% interest to the plaintiff. The operative paragraph of the decree is reproduced below :- **oknh dk lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu djkdj fodz; i= ds fu"iknu] vkfèkiR; fnyk, tkus] izfroknh Øekad&6 ds fodz; i= fnukad 17-3-2008 ds fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa okn izekf.kr u gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkkfi oknh ds i{k esa ;g oSdfYid vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkrk gS mls izfroknh dzekad 1 ls 4 nks ekg ds Hkhrj vfxze izfrQy dh jkf'k 9]42]500@& #i, 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr vnk djsaxsA rn~uqlkj okn vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dk okn O;; izfroknh Øekad 1 ls 4 ogu djsaxsA vf/koDrk Qhl izekf.kr fd, tkus ij izek.k i= ;k rkfydk vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks] vafdr dh tk,A** 2. Vide order dated 4.5.2011, this appeal was admitted for final hearing, thereafter, vide order dated 20.5.2011 parties were directed to maintain status-quo about the possession over the land in question. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, a compromise has been arrived at between the appellant plaintiff and respondent defendant No.6. Accordingly, they jointly filed an application under Order XXIII rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (IA.No.2295/2021). 4. The factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this High Court bench at Indore on 1.4.2021 in presence of appellant and respondent No.6. As per the terms and settlement, respondent No.6 has deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.9,42,500/- along with 9% interest in total Rs.15,34,305/- on 27.5.2011. Thereafter, by way of compromise the respondent No.6 has paid Rs.25,00,000/- vide cheque No.495970 and Rs.25,00,000/- vide cheque No.495971 dated 5.3.2021 drawn on Union Bank of India, Siyaganj Branch, Indore to the plaintiff. As per the terms and settlement, respondent No.6 has deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.9,42,500/- along with 9% interest in total Rs.15,34,305/- on 27.5.2011. Thereafter, by way of compromise the respondent No.6 has paid Rs.25,00,000/- vide cheque No.495970 and Rs.25,00,000/- vide cheque No.495971 dated 5.3.2021 drawn on Union Bank of India, Siyaganj Branch, Indore to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has accepted the ownership of defendant No.6 by virtue of sale deed dated 17.3.2008 and he shall not claim any title or right over the land bearing Survey No.450 area 0.251 hectare and Survey No.451/532 A area 0.066 hectare total area 0.317 hectare situated in Village Pigdambar, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore. 5. The plaintiff has accepted the ownership of defendant No.6 by virtue of sale deed dated 17.3.2008 and he shall not claim any title or right over the land bearing Survey No.450 area 0.251 hectare and Survey No.451/532 A area 0.066 hectare total area 0.317 hectare situated in Village Pigdambar, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore. 5. The terms and settlement of the compromise are reproduced below:- **¼,½ ;g fd] fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa :- 9]42]500@&] ml ij 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt rFkk okn O;; gsrq ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= vihykFkhZ dks Lohdkj gSA mDr fMdzh/ku] C;kt ,oa okn O;; dh dqy jkf'k :-15]34]305@& izR;FkhZ Ø-6 }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa jlhn Øa-28 cqd Ø- 15505 fnukad 27-5-2011 }kjk tek dh xbZ gS] ftls U;k;ky; ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj vihykFkhZ dks jgsxkA ¼ch½ ;g fd] vkilh lgefr ds vuqlkj izR;FkhZ Ø-6 orZeku Øsrk ,u- vkj- ds- MsoyilZ ds }kjk vihykFkhZ dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr t;i= ds vuqlkj ns; jkf'k :- 9]42]500@&] 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt ,oa okn O;; ds vfrfjDr bl jkthukesa ds izfrQy Lo:i ns; r;'kqnk jkf'k lfgr dqy :- 50]00]000@& ¼ipkl yk[k½ dh jkf'k bl jkthukesa dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fd;s tkrs le; ;qfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] fl;kxat 'kk[kk] bUnkSj ds psd dzekad 495970 :- 25]00]000@& ,oa psd Øa- 495971 :- 25]00]000@& fnukad 5-3-2021 }kjk vnk dh tkosxhA mijksDrkuqlkj vc nkfo;k O;ogkj ,oa t;i= ckcn vihYkkFkhZ dk dksbZ ysu&nsu ,oa Dyse 'ks"k ugh gSA ¼lh½ ;g fd] mDr of.kZr psd dks cSad ls Hkqxrku vihykFkhZ dks izkIr gksuk] izR;FkhZ Øa-6 o muds vUrfjrh es- ,uvkj- ds- MsoyilZ }kjk Hkh bl jkthukek vkosnui= gLrk{kj fd, tk jgs gSA ¼Mh½ ;g fd] bl jkthukeas ds izdk'k esa] nkfo;k Hkwfe dk iathd`r fodz;i= }kjk izR;FkhZ Ø-6 dks fodz; gksus rFkk izR;FkhZ Ø- 6 }kjk es- ,u- vkj- ds- MsoyilZ ds i{k esa iathd`r foØ; foys[k }kjk fodz; fd;k tkuk rFkk mldk iw.kZ :i ls oS/kkfud gksuk] vihykFkhZ dks Lohdkj gS rFkk mlesa vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ vkifRr ugh gSA ¼b½ ;g fd] bl jkthukesa ds QyLi:i vc vihykFkhZ dk nkfo;k Hkwfe losZ Øa- 450 jdck 0-251 gs- ,oa losZ Ø-451@532 , jdck 0-066 gs- dqy jdck 0-317 gsxzke fixMEcj] rsglhy egq] ftyk bUnkSj ds lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ nkok ;k vf/kdkj 'ks"k ugh jgk gS vkSj u gh Hkfo"; esa dksbZ Dyse vFkok fookn fd;k tkosxkA ¼,Q½ ;g fd] bl jkthukesa ds vuqlkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= dh iw.kZ larq"Vh ds izdk'k esa vihykFkhZ bl vihy esa dksbZ lgk;rk ugh pkgrk gS rFkk ;g vihy Lo;a fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu djrk gSA ¼th½ ;g fd] vihykFkhZ bl vihy esa izR;FkhZ Ø-1 ls 5 ds fo:) dksbZ lgk;rk ugh pkgrk gSA ¼,p½ ;g fd] bl vihy dk O;; mHk;i{k viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA** 6. It is clear from the aforesaid, decree passed against defendants - respondents No.1 to 4 has been satisfied by the defendant – respondent No.6 and in addition the defendant No.6 has paid Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff, which he has accepted. Therefore, this appeal can be disposed of in terms of the settlement. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2011 is modified. A decree be drawn accordingly. Record of the trial Court be sent back.