Shanti Bai vs Horilal

Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

Heard on the application under Order 23 Rule 1 (proviso) of the CPC for grant of leave filed on behalf of the appellants / defendants.

The application is allowed.

Also heard on the application under Order 23 Rules 1 & 3 of the CPC filed on behalf of both the parties.

The appeal has been admitted for final hearing on 2-7-2010.

Three defendants i.e. appellants No.1 & 3 herein and LRs of appellant No.2 herein and LRs of the original plaintiff Horilal / private respondents

herein, have filed application that the matter has been compromised between the parties and as per the compromise application, LRs of the plaintiff /

private respondents herein would get 8 / 25 (32%) share and the defendants / appellants herein would get 17 / 25 (68%) share in the suit property

shown in Schedules 1 & 2 of the plaint except Khasra No.181 measuring area 0.50 acre situated at Village Barpali, Patwari Halka No.2, Tahsil

Champa mentioned in Schedule 1; Khasra No.2063 measuring area 0.02 acre situated at Village Sheoni, Patwari Halka No.3, Tahsil Champa; and

House No.22, Sheet No.31, Plot No.33, area 377 sq.mtrs., situated at Municipal Council Champa, Barpali, Patwari Halka No.2 mentioned in Schedule

2 of the plaint. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the compromise application state as under: -

“2) That, as per the compromise the plaintiffs / respondents have agreed to get 8/25 (32%) and defendants / appellants have agreed to get 17/25

(68%) in the suit property vide scheduled 1 & 2 except Khasra No.181 measuring area 0.50 acre situated at village Barpali, P.H.No.2, Tahsil Champa

mentioned in schedule â€" 1, Khasra No.2063 measuring 0.02 acre situated at village Sheoni, P.H.No.3, Tahsil Champa and House No.22, Sheet

No.31, Plot No.33, Area 377 sq.mtr. situated at Municipal Council, Champa, Barpali. P.H.No.2, Schedule â€" 2 attached with the plaint. Copy of the

Schedules is enclosed herewith as Document No.D/1.

3) That, the plaintiff have abandoned 17/25 (68%) share in the aforesaid suit property giving the same in favour of the defendants and the defendants

have left 8/25 (32%) in favour of the plaintiff.â€​

In support of the application, on behalf of the plaintiff, Mahendra Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Brihaspati Bai have been examined, whereas, on

behalf of the defendants, Shanti Bai, Dhanwantin Yadav and Suresh have been examined. They have unequivocally stated before the Additional

Registrar (Judicial) that without pressure or fear they have compromised the dispute as they are near relatives and in order to maintain relations, they

have compromised the dispute.

Today, when the matter is taken-up, Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein / defendants, would submit that since the

matter has been compromised in terms of the compromise application and the dispute has been settled amicably, the compromise application deserves

to be allowed and compromise decree be passed.

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1(A) to 1(C) herein / LRs of the original plaintiff, also has made similar

submission that since the parties are near relatives and in order to settle the dispute amicably, they have compromise the matter, therefore, the

compromise application be allowed.

I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of both the parties and also gone through the compromise application.

Parties have also filed affidavits in support of the compromise application. They have been examined before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and

in their statements they have clearly stated that they have compromised the dispute amicably and compromise deed has been filed.

Considering the fact that parties are near relatives and they have resolved the dispute amicably in terms of the compromise application and they

have defined their respective shares in the application which they have accepted in affidavits as well as in the statements made before the Additional

Registrar (Judicial) and it is not shown that undue pressure or any misrepresentation has been made, it would be appropriate to accept the application

filed under Order 23 Rules 1 & 3 of the CPC. Accordingly, the compromise application is allowed and compromise decree be drawn making the

application under Order 23 Rules 1 & 3 of the CPC and Schedules 1 & 2 of the plaint, a part of the decree.

The second appeal stands finally disposed of having been compromised between the parties. Parties shall bear their own cost(s).

Compromise decree be drawn-up accordingly.