Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh vs Dalip Kaur And Ors on 19 September, 2015
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
RSA No.722 of 2010 (O&M) 1
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-7885-C-2015 and
CM-7886-C-2015 in/and
RSA-722-2010
Date of Decision: 19.09.2015
RAGHBIR SINGH
......Appellant
Vs
DALIP KAUR AND ORS.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Joshi, Advocate
for the non-applicant/respondents.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
CM-7885-C-2015 Prayer in this application is for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Raghbir Singh. He died on 11.01.2013, leaving behind widow and three sons. Suburan Kaur-widow is claiming herself to be legal representative of deceased Raghbir Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 24.11.1995.
Notice of this application was issued to non- applicant/respondents.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Joshi learned counsel for the non- MOHMED ATIK 2015.09.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh RSA No.722 of 2010 (O&M) 2 applicant/respondents has no objection for impleading Suburan Kaur as legal representative of Raghbir Singh for the purpose of deciding this appeal.
In view of aforesaid, Suburan Kaur is ordered to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased Raghbir Singh, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM-7886-C-2015 Prayer in this application is to decide the main case i.e. RSA No.722 of 2010 on the basis of compromise (Annexure A-3) attached with the application.
On the concurrence of both the parties, main appeal is being taken up.
RSA-722-2010 Plaintiff-respondents filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession in equal share i.e. 1/3rd share of the estate of Puran Singh along with electric connection of tubewell in agricultural land as depicted in the plaint. Further declaration was sought that the Will dated 11.07.1983 registered on 13.07.1983 executed by Puran Singh is illegal, fraudulent, null and void and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. A decree for permanent injunction was sought as a consequential relief, thereby restraining the defendants from alienating share of Puran Singh in any manner.
The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court vide MOHMED ATIK 2015.09.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh RSA No.722 of 2010 (O&M) 3 judgment and decree dated 19.01.2008 and the decision was upheld in appeal also vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar.
Defendant No.2-Raghbir Singh preferred this appeal, which was admitted.
Now during the pendency of this appeal, both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and a compromise deed has been executed on 13.07.2015 between the parties. This compromise deed has been duly signed by Smt. Suburan Kaur, Jaspreet Singh, Daminder Singh and Naib Singh as first party and Gurmeet Kaur and Dalip Kaur (plaintiffs) as second party.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that Suburan Kaur while coming from United Kingdom on 13.07.2015 has participated in the compromise and also executed affidavit in support thereof by appearing before the Notary. Brothers of Raghbir Singh namely Jaspreet Singh, Daminder Singh and Naib Singh have also signed the compromise in token of confirmation as they are also entitled to the property along with Raghbir Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that sons of Raghbir Singh namely Narinderjit Singh, Mandeep Singh and Dalbir Singh have no objection in case compromise is given effect.
Smt. Suburan Kaur after executing the compromise in question has gone back. Today general power of attorneys of plaintiffs are present in Court. Jaswinder Singh (son) general power MOHMED ATIK 2015.09.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh RSA No.722 of 2010 (O&M) 4 of attorney of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and Harmal Singh (son) general power of attorney of Dalip Kaur are present in Court. Both have been identified by Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocate in Court. Their statements are being separately recorded on oath.
As per compromise both the parties have decided to divide 1/3rd share of Raghbir Singh. 18 Kanals of land will remain in favour of defendants/first party, which will include 2 Kanal 10 Marlas of land already acquired by GMADA for road. Rest of the land will be transferred in the name of second party i.e. 22 Kanals. Second party has undertaken that they will appear in Court and make statement accordingly for giving effect to the compromise. Accordingly, general power of attorneys on behalf of both the plaintiffs are present in Court.
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that terms and conditions of the compromise would be meticulously implemented and this appeal be disposed of in terms of compromise.
I have heard the background of the case in the light of compromise so effected between the parties. The compromise in question is proved to be genuine and would facilitate both the parties to live in peace.
Apparently, legal representative of defendant-appellant is living abroad. Plaintiffs have amicably resolved their differences and have voluntarily accepted to part with 18 Kanals of land inclusive of 2 Kanals 10 Marlas of land already acquired by GMADA. MOHMED ATIK 2015.09.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh RSA No.722 of 2010 (O&M) 5
In the light of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that this appeal can be disposed of in terms of compromise.
In view of aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of. Compromise be made part of the decree.
Sept. 19, 2015 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
MOHMED ATIK
2015.09.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
chandigarh