Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On the basis of compromise dated 18.03.1996, 4th Additional District Judge, Jhansi disposed off the revision and consequently, a decree was passed by the revisional court in terms of compromise.

8. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of compromise decree constructed the market upon the land which fell into their share under the compromise. It appears that when the appellant demanded the possession of his share as per the compromise, the respondent nos.1 and 2 refused to give the same and consequently, a dispute had arisen between the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, appellant filed an execution case before the court below for executing the compromise decree but executing court refused to execute the compromise decree which according to it was illegal and not enforceable in law.

10. The appellant further pleaded in the said application that by playing fraud, respondent nos.1 and 2 entered into compromise with the appellant and got the revision disposed off by the revisional court on 25.04.1996 in terms of compromise and consequently, a decree was also prepared. It was further pleaded that respondent nos.1 and 2 took possession over the property in dispute in pursuance of compromise decree and when the appellant demanded his share under the compromise decree, respondent nos.1 and 2 refused to handover the same and the executing court also refused to execute the decree being unenforceable in law. It was further pleaded that the revisional court has recalled the order dated 25.04.1996 which was passed on the basis of compromise and has restored the revision to its original number, and as such, the compromise decree having been set aside, the appellant is entitled to restitution of possession over the property in dispute under Section 144 of C.P.C. as respondent nos.1 and 2 had obtained the possession over the property under the compromise decree.

27. The fact as born out from the records clearly reveals that Suit No. 174 of 1992 was instituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction with respect to properties detailed above. It is also not in dispute that a preliminary issue with respect to valuation of the suit was decided against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 against which they preferred Civil Revision No. 04 of 1994 which was disposed of by the revisional court by order dated 25.04.1996 in terms of compromise entered into between the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2. It is also evident from the record that possession of the property which came in the share of respondent nos.1 and 2 was delivered to respondent nos.1 and 2 by appellant in terms of compromise which was the basis for disposal of the revision no. 04 of 1994. When the appellant demanded the possession of the property of his share in terms of compromise, the same was refused, and consequently the appellant preferred execution application for executing the decree prepared in terms of compromise which was refused by the Executing Court holding the compromise being illegal and not enforceable in law, and thereafter, appellant preferred application for setting aside the order dated 25.04.1996 which was allowed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jhansi on 04.11.1999 and the revision was restored to its original number.