1
41
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.647/2005.
LRs of Krishan Chandra Vs. Raja Ram
Date of Order :: 5th September 2008.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. G.R. Goyal, for the appellants.
Mr. N.S. Acharya, for the respondent.
.....
BY THE COURT:
Civil suit for declaration, for recovery of possession and
mesne profits, and for mandatory injunction (CO No. 67/2004)
as filed by the plaintiff-respondent Raja Ram against Krishan
Chandra (since deceased and represented by his legal
representatives-appellants herein) came to be decreed after
trial by the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 as passed
by the learned Trial Court. The suit was decreed in the
following terms:-
“अत: व द र ज र म द र पसतत व द ववरद पततव द
कष चद (मतक) एव अन पततव द ग आत क रप स!
म खच # त$म$ पक र स! ड’क) डक ! ज त ह+ :-
व द , पततव द स! ववव डदत मक $ जजसक वववर
व दपत क! चर स. 4 व 5 म. वज त # ह+ , क कबज
म0ज1द पततव द ग क2 त$ म $स र त$षक तसत
कर प प कर! ग व व द व द पसतत कर$! क) त4$
वर# क) प1व# क) अवत6 क 200 रपए पततम ह क)
दर स! डकर 7200 रपए मध वत8 ल भ क! रप
म. प प कर! ग तथ व द पसतत कर$! क) डद$ क
3.12.87 स! व दगसत पररसर क कबज प प कर$!
तक 200 रपए पततम ह क) दर स! अततररक
न लक पसतत कर$! पर उक र त प प कर$!
क अत6क र ह+ ।
2
व द , पततव द कष चद (मतक) द र डक ! ग !
त$म # क2 हट कर प$: प1व# जसथतत म. व दगसत
मक $ क कबज प प कर$! क अत6क र ह+ ।
इस ब बत पततव द ग क2 आज पक त$र!6 ज स!
प बद डक ज त ह+ डक वह कतथत त$म # ज2
डक पततव द कष चद (मतक) द र डक ज$
सव4क र डक ग ह+ , क2 हट कर व द क2 कबज
सभल व! । पततव द ग द र उक आद! क)
प ल$ म. ववफल रह$! पर व द क2 ह अत6क र
ह2ग डक वह पततव द ग क! खचG पर, पततव द
(मतक) द र डक ! ग ! त$म # क2 हट कर मक $
क कबज प1व# जसथतत म. पततव द ग स! प प
कर! ग ।
व द क व द पततव द ग क! ववरद $गरपरररद
द र ज र ग ट ऑफ ' ' (ववक ववल!ख) 27 जल ई
1984 क! कम म. ग वग पर डटपप 4 डक ! वब$
ख ररज डक ज त ह+ । पकक र $ ' ' ऑफ
ग ट डद$ क 27 जल ई 1984 क! दसत व!ज क!
आ6 र पर अप$! अत6क र2 क2 त करव $! क!
तलए सवतत रह. ग! ।"
Against the judgment and decree aforesaid, this appeal
has been preferred by the defendants, legal representatives of
the deceased defendant Krishan Chandra with the appellant
No. 1/2 Mahendra son of Krishan Chandra acting as power of
attorney holder of other appellants.
This appeal was admitted for consideration after hearing
the parties on 05.01.2006 and execution of the impugned
decree was ordered to remain stayed on the condition of the
appellants’ depositing half of the decretal amount and future
mesne profits month by month.
3
While this appeal remained pending for other
proceedings, learned counsel for the parties jointly filed an
application (IA No. 4642/2008) on 17.04.2008 with the
submissions that inspired from the spirit of Lok Adalat, they
have entered into compromise with the terms of the
compromise stated in the deed attached to the application.
The said compromise has duly been verified by the Registrar
on 23.07.2008, in the presence of the said appellant and
power of attorney holder Mahendra and the sole respondent
Raja Ram, identified by their respective counsel.
Essentially, the terms of the compromise are to the
effect that the respondent-plaintiff has agreed that the property
in question shall remain in possession of the appellant
Mahendra who shall be entitled to use the same as lawful
owner and no objection would be raised on the lease deed
issued by the Municipal Board in favour of Krishan Chandra
and that by virtue of such compromise, the respondent would
not press on his suit and the same would be got dismissed as
not pressed. It has also been stated that the appellant has
made payment of an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- to the
respondent through Demand Draft No. 8007 payable at Mandi
Gharsana.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the subject matter of dispute where the respondent-
4
plaintiff, who had earlier claimed ownership over the property
in dispute and the suit was decreed in his favour for recovery
of possession and mesne profits and for mandatory injunction,
has now agreed to concede the right and title in favour of the
appellants and not to press on his suit any further, the
compromise between the parties having been verified, and
learned counsel for the parties submitting that the matter may
be disposed of in terms of the said compromise, it appears
appropriate to dispose of the matter in terms of the
compromise between the parties.
Therefore, while accepting the compromise as filed by
the parties on record, this first appeal stands disposed of; the
plaintiff-respondent is permitted not to press on his suit and,
accordingly, the civil suit (CO No.67/2004) stands dismissed;
and the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 are
annulled. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Mohan/