Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs Surinder Kaur & Ors on 19 December, 2014
CR-6525-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6525-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.12.2014
Jatinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Kaur and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL)
CM-28078-CII-2014 Application is allowed as prayed for.
Copy of sale deed dated 22.5.1995 (Annexure P-11) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CR-6525-2014 Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside/modification of the order dated 19.5.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur whereby the application filed by the respondents and objections filed by the petitioner were disposed of.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the paper book.
As per sale deed dated 22.5.1995 (Annexure P-11) and the RISHU KATARIA 2014.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-6525-2014 (O&M) -2- earlier sale deed dated 16.11.1999 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner became owner of 31 marlas of the land i.e. 1 kanal 11 marlas in khasra No. 99 for which there was a dispute before the trial Court and ended in a compromise decree dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-10), on the basis of compromise dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) which reads as under:-
"It is ordered that the parties to the suit have arrived at a compromise which has been reduced into writing. The statement has been recorded of Santokh Singh defendant who has been identified by Sh. Munish Sharma, Advocate. The statement has already been made by Gurjit Singh, attorney of plaintiffs. As per the said compromise, which is Ex. C1, it has been resolved that the land measuring 13 marlas shall be transferred in the name of the wife of defendant No. 2 comprised in khasra No. 99 having front of 20 feet towards the Bilga Road abutting to the property of Jaswinder Singh in equal share and the remaining share has been resolved to be given to the plaintiff which shall be transferred after withdrawal of other proceedings i.e. criminal cases after seeking the quashing and further that the amount qua the pronote and receipt shall also not be pursued by the attorney of the plaintiff in the said suits. Gurjit Singh Attorney of the plaintiff has also made a statement whereby he agreed with the statement so made by the defendant RISHU KATARIA 2014.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-6525-2014 (O&M) -3- Santokh Singh whereby he has undertaken to withdraw all the criminal cases after seeking the quashing thereof and shall also not seek the recovery of the amount qua the decree, which has been passed qua the pronote and receipt, qua which, the details have been elucidated. In the terms of the compromise Ex. C-1 and the statement so recorded, the parties shall be bound by the statements and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed."
In order to implement the decree, the respondents filed an execution before the Executing Court and after hearing both the sides, learned Executing Court directed the parties to execute the transfer deeds in terms of the decree. A contention was raised before the Executing Court that Surinder Kaur through her husband Santokh Singh as her attorney has sold 13 marlas of the land in khasra No. 99 to one Jaswinder Singh S/o Niranjan Singh S/o Samunda resident of village Mowai, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar vide sale deed date 8.4.2009 (Annexure P-7).
Perusal of the directions issued by the Executing Court clearly specify that in terms of the compromise decree, the petitioner was directed to execute the sale deed with regard to 13 marlas of land in favour of Surinder Kaur and simultaneously, Surinder Kaur was directed to execute the sale deed with regard to 8 marlas of land in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order is exactly in consonance with the compromise decree which the parties are bound to implement the same. In case, any dispute is raised by the subsequent vendor, the parties to the RISHU KATARIA 2014.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-6525-2014 (O&M) -4- compromise decree would be able to raise the contention that the sale deed subsequent to the decree may not be binding so as to defeat implementation of the decree lawfully passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute would always remain with regard to 8 marlas of the land which is to be transferred by Surinder Kaur but I find that necessary directions in this regard have already been issued by the Executing Court in the impugned order.
Obviously, in the sale deeds to be executed in implementation of the compromise decree, the property has to be described by way of dimensions as given in the compromise deed on the basis of which decree was passed with regard to 13 marlas of the land in favour of Surinder Kaur.
The instant petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations.
December 19, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
RISHU KATARIA
2014.12.23 15:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document