JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.10.2012 (for brevity “impugned judgment”), passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘trial Court’) in a civil suit titled As Raman Kumar Aggarwal vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and others, whereby the civil suit for partition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as under:- 2. The appellant along with respondent No. 1 and their father Satya Pal Aggarwal were members of joint Hindu family and were running different business concerns and had acquired various moveable and immovable properties either jointly or on individual names of the members of the joint family, having purchased from joint funds of the joint family. A dispute arose between the parties and the appellant filed a suit for declaration and partition before the Court of 2nd Additional District, Judge Jammu on 21.09.2000 being COS No. 10 titled Raman Kumar Aggarwal vs. Satya Pal Aggarwal and others. During the pendency of the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a compromise deed dated 02.02.2001 was executed between the parties registered with the Sub-Registrar, City Jammu on 14.07.2002 specifying the share of each of the parties and the properties which have been in their share. In terms of the compromise deed (supra) 50% share of M/S Sanjay Industries, Gangyal, Jammu alongwith stock-in-trade, building, land beneath and appurtenant thereto and ground floor of House No. 4 Lane No. 2 Shakti Nagar, Jammu comprising of three bed rooms, two living rooms, one dining room-cum,-lobby, one kitchen, one dressing room, three toilets, one bathroom, one store, one puja room, one varanda, one garage and a room of the first floor of the garage and its roof top fell to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal, father of the appellant and respondents 1, 3, 4 and husband of the respondent No. 2. It is stated that after the execution of the compromise deed, respondents 1 and 2 started disputing the terms of the compromise deed and also disputed the share of the appellant and contested the suit for partition filed by the appellant by filing written statements and disputed the terms of the compromise. It is further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Sh. It is further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal died and respondents were brought on record as legal representatives of Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal. After the death of Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal, a compromise was again arrived at between the parties to the said suit for declaration and partition filed by the appellant in which the respondents admitted the terms of compromise deed dated 02.02.2002 with slight modifications without effecting the share of the property fallen to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal and a decree in terms of compromise deed (supra) with slight modification pertaining to the construction of stairs was passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu on 06.10.2005. After the passing of the decree, share of the property fallen to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal became his exclusive property in the hands of the respondents after death. 3. It is stated that the respondents also forged a Will alleged to have been executed by Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal which was challenged by the appellant by way of a civil suit before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu and the said Will vide order dated 06.10.2005 was declared as illegal. Subsequent to passing of the judgments and decrees dated 06.10.2005 in two civil suits, the appellant filed a petition in terms of Section 152 CPC for amendment of decree and judgment dated 06.10.2005. The trial Court after hearing the parties to the said petition modified the decree vide order dated 08.11.2005. The said decree was passed after the death of late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal. 4. It is next stated that appellant time and again asked the respondents to partition the property left by late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal and render the accounts of the income and profits of Sanjay Industries, Gangyal, but the respondents refused to do so. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal bearing CIMA No. 331/2006 in which this Court vide order dated 05.03.2008 modified both the orders/decrees dated 06.10.2005 and 08.11.2005 to the following extent:- “1. Satya Pal Aggarwal and render the accounts of the income and profits of Sanjay Industries, Gangyal, but the respondents refused to do so. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal bearing CIMA No. 331/2006 in which this Court vide order dated 05.03.2008 modified both the orders/decrees dated 06.10.2005 and 08.11.2005 to the following extent:- “1. That the suit stands decreed in terms of the compromise dated 02.02.2001 purported to have been executed by parties and registered on 14.07.2001 and their statements recorded by the Court in support thereof along with the site map filed before the trial court so far as it is not inconsistent with the compromise deed, statements of parties recorded by the trial court as aforesaid. 2. That parties concerned shall perform their respective obligations under the aforementioned compromise and statements as acknowledged hereinabove within a period of six months from now without reference to further litigation. 3. That nothing herein shall effect any person not a party to aforesaid compromise who is otherwise not a LR or assignee or not claiming through any of the parties to the aforesaid compromise parties. 4. That copies of this order be furnished to Courts where other suits are pending between the parties to assess the effect and impact of aforesaid compromise as acknowledged hereinabove on their substance or portion thereof to be settled in accordance herewith and address only surviving portions of the controversies. 5. Any clarification in this order shall be sought from this court only. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 5. After passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, the appellant approached the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, by filing a civil suit for partition of ground floor of residential house No. 4, Lane No. 2, situated Shakti Nagar, Jammu comprising of three bed rooms, two living rooms, one dining room-cum,-lobby, one kitchen, one dressing room, three toilets, one bathroom, one store, one puja room, one varanda, one garage and a room of the first floor of the garage and its roof top bounded along with stock-in-trade, building, land beneath and appurtenant thereto and for separate possession by metes and bounds and for rendition of accounts of the said industries w.e.f. 31.12.2003 till the final settlement of the accounts. The said civil suit was objected by the respondents by filing their written statement. The said civil suit was objected by the respondents by filing their written statement. Thereafter learned Principal District, Judge, Jammu framed six issues, however, instead of deciding the civil suit by returning findings on the six issues so framed, dismissed the civil suit (supra) filed by the appellant by holding the same as not maintainable on the main ground that litigations between the parties have been finally settled by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2008 passed in CIMA No. 331/2006. 6. Operative part of the impugned judgment/order dated 08.10.2012 reads as under:- “The parties had a many round of litigation and finally settled in the High Court where the aforesaid judgment came to be passed interse the parties with a qualitative rider that when there is a dispute and any clarification required that may be sought from the Hon’ble High Court. Since there is a embargo laid down in the order that no other court can give the clarification. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as not maintainable; however, the plaintiff can approach the High Court for seeking any kind of clarification so far as the lis interse the party is concerned. File of this court shall be consigned to records after its due compilation.” 7. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 08.10.2012, on the following grounds:- i) That the trial Court has committed a serious irregularity and illegality while dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellant, inasmuch as, the issue qua partition of the estate of deceased Late Sh. Satya pal Aggarwal has not partitioned amongst his surviving legal heirs; ii) That the findings returned by the trial Court while dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellant are totally perverse and contrary to the factual position and that the partition of the estate of late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal after his demise has not taken place and the appellant has not been given any share from out of the estate left by late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal after his demise has not taken place and the appellant has not been given any share from out of the estate left by late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal; iii) That the impugned judgment/order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the trial Court has failed to draw distinction between the controversy set at rest by this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2008 and the controversy raised by the appellant in the civil suit for partition and rendition of accounts which has been dismissed now; iv) That by dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellant, the right of the appellant to inherit his share in the estate of late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal has been severally prejudice by the trial Court and thus, the impugned judgment is visiting the appellant with penal as well as civil consequences, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside; v) That the judgment impugned passed by the trial Court is also against the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as, the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to draw any decree and, as such, the appellant is not in a position to annex a copy of the decree with this appeal; vi) That the appellant in his civil suit for partition and rendition of accounts was not seeking any clarification with regard to the properties which have been distributed amongst the parties which is quite apparent from a bare perusal of the main civil suit, but the trial Court has failed to look into this aspect of the case and passed the judgment impugned in a totally hot-haste manner; 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments passed by the courts below. 9. Perusal of the record tends to show that during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, a compromise arrived at between the parties and in this regard a compromise deed dated 02.02.2001 was executed between the parties which was got registered with the Sub-Registrar, City Jammu, on 14.07.2001, specifying the share of each of the parties and the properties which have fallen in their share. Admittedly, plaintiff/ appellant herein has made a statement that since he has entered into compromise with other parties vide compromise deed dated 02.02.2001, the same is acceptable to him, with all its conditions incorporated therein. Admittedly, plaintiff/ appellant herein has made a statement that since he has entered into compromise with other parties vide compromise deed dated 02.02.2001, the same is acceptable to him, with all its conditions incorporated therein. The defendants/ respondents herein have also made the statement that compromise dated 02.02.2001 entered upon by them, is acceptable to them and all conditions incorporated there is also acceptable to them. The trial Court vide order dated 06.10.2005, on the basis of statements made by parties as well as terms of compromise deed dated 02.02.2002 passed a decree in terms of compromise deed (supra) with slight modification pertaining to the construction of stairs. 10. It will be appropriate and advantageous herein to refer to Apex Court judgment in Kale and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1976 (3) SCC 119 wherein it was observed that the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolve disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to shun their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. It was further held that the object of the arrangements is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strife which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. 11. Suffice it to state that during the pendency of the suit for partition, the parties entered into a compromise. Statements of the parties in support of compromise deed were also recorded by the trial Court. After recording the statements of the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 06.10.2005 passed a decree on the basis of statements made by both the parties as well as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with slight modification. Thus, it would appear that the dispute between the parties was finally settled and both the parties accepted the same. Thus, it would appear that the dispute between the parties was finally settled and both the parties accepted the same. The present petition has been filed by the appellant seeking quashment of judgment dated 08.10.2012 passed by the learned Principal District, Judge, Jammu and remanding the matter to trial Court for granting a decree of partition which has already been settled between the parties. 12. The compromise was arrived at between the parties and in this regard, they executed compromise deed dated 02.02.2001 which was got registered with Sub-Registrar, City Jammu on 14.07.2001, specifying the share of each of the parties and the properties which have fallen in their share. In my view, in case any of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed has not been complied with by the respondents or the petitioner has not been given the possession of the property fallen in his share, the petitioner can have his remedies as may be permissible in law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise an issue which stands settled between the parties way back in the year 2005 by the trial Court as well as by this Court on 05.03.2008.Thus,the partition had already taken place and it was the plaintiff/appellant herein who by his own conduct accepted the previous partition effected between the parties vide compromise deed dated 02.02.2001 registered with the Sub-Registrar, City Jammu on 14.07.2001.Petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the matter which stands settled with the consent of the parties. 13. The judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are well reasoned and passed after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The compromise has been made and executed mutually by and between the parties and in this regard the petitioner has also made a statement before the Trial Court that he has entered into compromise with the respondents vide compromise deed dated 01.02.2001 registered by Sub- Registrar City, Jammu on 14.07.2001, which is acceptable to him with all its conditions incorporated in the said compromise deed. Thus, the dispute between the parties was finally settled and both the parties accepted the same. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.