Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sonepat, in C.R. No. 27/13 of 1986, dated 2.6.1988.

2. The plaintiffs in this appeal filed the suit for possession of the suit land alleging that the defendant Banwari Lal had encroached the suit land which is in Killa No. 1112 to the extent of 3 Kanals 5 Marlas. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit land under two registered sale deeds dated 6.11.1959 and 11.2.1969, from Kanij Fatma and Amar Ahmed Khan and the defendants encroached upon the said land, therefore, he filed the suit for recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit the defendant Banwari All and his legal representatives are brought on record.

3. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit land and they further pleaded that suit land was purchased by the defendants from Mohan All on 25.3.1976 and, therefore, they have been in possession of the suit land in their own right.

4. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Judge framed appropriate issues and on consideration of the evidence on record the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Gohana, held that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the land and that defendants were cross-passers and accordingly decreed the suit for possession. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, Sonepat, unsuccessfully. The appellants, therefore, filed this second appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal an application was filed by the plaintiff respondent in C.M.No. 1820 of 1996 to dispose of the appeal in terms of the com promise dated November 14, 1995. That application was opposed by the appellants. This Court by order-dated 25.9.1996 directed the Additional District Judge, Sonepat to submit a report whether a lawful compromise in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to the trial of the appeal was entered into between the parties or not. In pursuance of the said direction the Additional District Judge, Sonepat submitted his report dated 5.12.1996. According to the learned Additional District Judge, a valid compromise was entered and the appellants agreed to withdraw R.S.A. No. 1732 of 1988 under the terms of the compromise which was filed in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1994 which was pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

10. A reading of the compromise clearly shows that the parties intended to resolve all their disputes to maintain peace and harmony. The parties have given up their claim in regard to certain property in favour of the other. It is a bilateral one. It cannot be said on a reading of the compromise that it relates only to the property which is a subject matter of the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1994 pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Order 23 Rule 3 prior to the amendment in 1976 reads as "so far as it relates to the suit" but the same was substituted" so far as it relates to the parties to the suit whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as subject matter of the suit." Therefore, in my opinion, the compromise need not be confined only to the subject matter of the Civil Appeal, No. 97 of 1994 pending on the file of Additional District Judge, Sonepat. If the compromise is between the parties to the suit the same can be acted upon by the Court.