Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 546 (UTT)

Vidhyawati v. Bhagwan Singh Rana

2024-08-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. The appellant-plaintiff had filed an Original Suit (O.S. No.939 of 2006) for the perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 16.12.2010. Against the said decree dated 16.12.2010, a Civil Appeal (No.100 of 2010) was filed. The respondent nos.1 and 2 had filed a cross-objection in the said Civil Appeal against the findings on issue no.1 and issue no.3 of the trial court. Later, the said cross objection was converted into Civil Appeal No.08 of 2011. 2. The Civil Appeal No.100 of 2010 has been dismissed on 24.10.2011 vide judgment and decree, passed by learned Additional District Judge/Vth F.T.C., Dehradun. 3. The Civil Appeal No.8 of 2011, filed by the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3, has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge/Vth F.T.C., Dehradun. 4. The Second Appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the lower appellate court has committed error of law in not considering the fact that the name of the plaintiff/respondent was already recorded in Khasra and Khautani and as such the land could not have been said to be non identifiable as it could have been located with the help of sizra (map in the revenue record)”? 5. The record of Second Appeal No.10 of 2012 will be treated as a leading case. 6. Heard Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Naitik Bhatt, learned counsel for respondents. 7. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Naitik Bhatt, Advocate submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes and after settlement, the appellant Smt. Vidhyawati has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application (IA No.9621 of 2023) along with her affidavit and the Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021. 8. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the parties have settled their disputes through the Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021 with their free will and without any pressure. Learned counsel for both the parties have requested to decide the Second Appeals on the basis of the Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021. 9. The said Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021 is verified. 10. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the Second Appeal No.10 of 2012 and the Second Appeal No.11 of 2012 are decided on the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the said Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021. 9. The said Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021 is verified. 10. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the Second Appeal No.10 of 2012 and the Second Appeal No.11 of 2012 are decided on the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the said Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021. The judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010, passed by learned trial court, judgment and decree dated 24.10.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No.100 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No.08 of 2011 are modified accordingly. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Application (IA No.9621 of 2023), affidavit of the appellant-Smt. Vidhyawati and the Compromise (Samajhautaanaama) dated 26.01.2021 will form part of the decree. 12. The Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly. 13. A copy of this judgment be placed in the record of Second Appeal No.11 of 2012.