Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Roshan Lal And Others vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others on 28 April, 2016

Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 494 of 2002 Date of decision: 28.04.2016 .

           Roshan Lal and others                                                  Appellants





                                                  Versus





           Ghanshyam Dass and others                                             Respondents




                                                             of
           Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants rt : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).

Judgment and decree, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1999 on 2.8.2002 is under challenge in this appeal. The deceased, defendant No. 1, was in second appeal before this Court.

He was aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sundernagar on 21.6.1999 in Civil Suit No. 239 of 1994, whereby the suit for possession of the land entered in khewat No. 314, Khatauni No. 550, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Khasra Nos. 426 and 427, Kitas 2, measuring 147.56 Sq.

meters, situate in Mohal Bhojpur, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. was decreed by way of effecting partition thereof to the extent of the share of respondent No. 1, .

plaintiff-Ghanshyam Dass. Appeal filed by deceased defendant No. 1, Yashodhan even was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court also. Any how, the parties of are now not in favour of pursuing this matter on merits and rather, during the course of proceedings before the rt learned Mediator, have agreed for amicable settlement of the dispute. The area of the suit land in the record, no doubt, has been reflected as 147.56 Sq. meters. However, now on measurement, conducted during the course of mediation proceedings, it is only 88.56 Sq. meters available on the spot. In terms of the compromise, as arrived at between the parties, respondent No. 1-plaintiff Ghanshyam Dass shall be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property i.e. out of Khasra No. 426, 2.47 Sq. meters denoted by Khasra No. 426/1 and out of suit land bearing Khasra No. 427, 19.68 Sq. meters, denoted by Khasra No. 427/2, total measuring 22.15 Sq. meters, as detailed in the spot Tatima. The remaining suit land, measuring 66.41 Sq. meters, bearing ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:12:36 :::HCHP 3 Khasra No. 426/2 and 427/1 shall remain in the joint possession of the appellant-defendant No. 1 and other share holders. Besides, the appellants-defendants have also paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) only to .

respondent-plaintiff towards use and occupation charges of the suit property vide Cheque No. 163686, dated 17.3.2016, drawn on State Bank of India, Sundernagar, of District Mandi, H.P. In this view of the matter, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon in this appeal on merits. Therefore, rt in modification of the judgment and decree, under challenge, the suit is decreed in terms of the deed of compromise, Ex. PX and Tatima, annexed thereto which shall form part of the decree. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

April 28, 2016 (K) (Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:12:36 :::HCHP 4 .

of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:12:36 :::HCHP