Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: June 23 vs Devinder Kakkar (Dead) Through Lr on 23 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1 2025:HHC:19438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RSA No. 216 of 2016 alongwith
CMP No.13921 of 2025
Date of Decision: June 23, 2025
Surinder Kakkar ....Appellant.
Versus
Devinder Kakkar (Dead) through LR
Sanjeev Kakkar ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate,
alongwith Ms.Rinkle Khoond, Advocate,
vice Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)
Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- defendant against judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015, passed by District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.82 of 2013, titled as Davinder Kakkar vs. Surinder Kakkar, whereby judgment and decree dated 15.10.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Civil Suit No.274/09/06, titled as Davinder Kakkar vs. Surinder Kakkar , has been reversed and suit of the plaintiff has been decreed to the effect that present plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit land comprising in Khata No.352, Khatuani No.528, Khasra No.3415/1240 area measuring 0-00-42 hectares, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2025:HHC:19438 situated at Mohal Civil Station, Mouza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., having equal user and possessory rights in the suit land.
2. During pendency of the appeal, on death of respondent-plaintiff-Devinder Kakkar, he was substituted through his son Sanjeev Kakkar.
3. CMP No.13921 of 2025 has been filed by respondent- appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff. Application is duly signed by respondent-plaintiff Sanjeev Kakkar son of Devinder Kakkar as well as Anu Kakkar on behalf of respondent-defendant being holder of his General Power of Attorney. Application is supported by affidavits of both parties. It has been submitted that Anu Kakkar is duly authorized by Smt.Surinder Kakkar to compromise the matter and sign the proceedings/application of compromise on her behalf because due to ailment Surinder Kakkar is not in a position to approach the counsel as well as to attend the Court.
4. Terms of compromise entered into between the parties read as under:-
"4. That now parties have entered into an amicable settlement of dispute according to which, area of Khasra No.3415/1240 is shown in the enclosed Tatima prepared by the Halqua Patwari as Khasra No.3415/1240/1 shall be owned exclusively by the Respondent Sh.Sanjeev Kakkar son of Late Sh.Devinder Kakkar and he shall use, hold, occupy and possess this area peacefully and present Appellant/Defendant will not interfere over the same.
5. That as per amicable settlement of dispute between the parties, the present Appellant/Defendant Smt.Surinder Kakkar shall own, hold, occupy and possess peacefully the area of Khasra No.3415/1240/2 as shown in the enclosed 3 2025:HHC:19438 Tatima. The Respondent Sh.Sanjeev Kakkar will not interfere in the use of this portion of land by Smt.Surinder Kakkar. These plots are shown in the Tatima R.X.
5. Learned counsel for parties, under instructions received from parties, on behalf of parties, have endorsed the compromise in aforesaid terms.
6. Tatima/Map of the spot RX has also been placed on record alongwith application CMP No.13921 of 2025. Application and Tatima are taken on record as submitted by learned counsel for the parties as Ex.PX and Ex.RX.
7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, as prayed, judgment and decree passed by the District Judge is modified in terms of compromise and respondent-plaintiff Sanjeev Kakkar son of Late Sh.Davinder kakkar is declared owner in possession of Khasra No.3415/1240/1 as stated in application Ex.PX and depicted in spot Tatima Ex.RX and appellant-defendant is declared owner in possession of Khasra No.3415/1240/2 as stated in application Ex.PX and depicted in spot Tatima Ex.RX. Application Ex.PX and Tatima Ex.RX are also made part of the record and the same shall form part of the record as well as decree.
8. Necessary entries shall be made by the Revenue Authorities in the revenue record in aforesaid compromise decree with respect to ownership and possession of the respective parties within a month, after production of copy of judgment and decree alongwith copies of Ex.PX and Ex.RX by both or either of them.
4 2025:HHC:19438
9. Compromise decree, in aforesaid terms, be prepared.
10. Appeal alongwith application CMP No.13921 of 2025 is disposed of with aforesaid modification in the judgment and decree.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
June 23, 2025 (Purohit)