Gurpreet Singh vs Chatur Bhuj Goel on 15 December, 1987
It is not disputed by anyone that land measuring
79 kanals 6 marla was owned by respondent No.3/Prithipal
Singh, who is a resident of Hong Kong. Both Ganga Singh
and Pavitar Singh were in occupation of the disputed land as
tenants. It is the case of respondent No.3 that Ganga Singh
forged general power of attorney dated 9.10.1995 on the basis
of which he sold the land by way of three sale deeds dated
10.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 29.12.1995 to Pavitar Singh. As
soon as, respondent No.3 came to know about the sale, he
filed civil suit No.348/1996 in which a compromise between
the parties was effected on 1.3.1997 and it was decided that
Pavitar Singh would re-execute sale deeds in favour of
respondent No.3 and would also cooperate in straitening the
revenue record but both Pavitar Singh and Ganga Singh
would continue to cultivate the land in dispute and maintain
the record. The Civil Suit was taken up before the Lok Adalat
where the compromise was placed on record as Ex.C-1 and
on the same day after recording the statements of the parties
about the terms and conditions of the compromise, the suit
was dismissed in view of the compromise. Taking advantage
of the dismissal of the suit, it appears that Pavitar Singh
became totally dishonest and sold the land in dispute to one
Mohinder Singh on 22.4.2009 who further sold it to Manjit
Kaur (present petitioner) though earlier thereto respondent
CWP No.22877 of 2013 -7-
No.3 had initiated the proceedings of eviction of Pavitar Singh
in which he thoroughly succeeded but when application for
taking possession by way of execution was filed, the Collector
committed a mistake on the ground that in suit for
permanent injunction filed by Pavitar Singh a finding has
been recorded that he has become the owner of the property
in dispute being a bona fide purchaser. It is worthwhile to
mention that in the case of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) it was
held by the Supreme Court that a compromise must be in
writing and signed by the parties. The compromise in the
present case is also in writing and signed by the parties. The
compromise is also made part of the record of the Civil Suit
as Ex.C-1, in terms of which the statement is also suffered by
both the parties. Inasmuch as Pavitar Singh had stated that
the compromise bears his signatures and the suit be decided
as per its terms and conditions, it is altogether a different
matter that the learned Civil Judge instead of disposing of the
suit in terms of compromise used the word 'dismissal'.