SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 807

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
Hussainbhai Allarakhbhai Dariaya & Others
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7208 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.9733 of 2007]
Decided on : 31-08-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Huzefa Ahmadi, Ejaz Maqbool. Ms. Sakshi Banga, Ms. Garima Kapoor, Mohd. Tahir Hakim, Advocates. For the Respondents:Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, Mitul Shehlat, Milind Kumar, Ms. Madhvi Divan, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 23, Rule 3–Under Order 23 Rule 3, a decree can be made in terms of compromise only insofar as it relates to parties to suit–Parties to suit had not entered into any compromise and Court had not passed decree in terms of compromise–Second appeal would not lie at instance of any non-party, as there is no appealable order or decree–Appeal by appellants was not maintainable and refusal to grant leave to appeal was justified.

       (Paras 14 to 17)

Judgment :-

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their application seeking permission to file a second appeal. The Samast Sunni Muslim Jamat, Damnagar (6th respondent herein, for short the `Jamat') represented by its Secretary filed a suit against respondents 1 to 5 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amreli (Regular Civil Suit No.240/1995) for a declaration that they are the owners in possession of land bearing old survey No.248, Damnagar. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining the fifth respondent Damnagar Gram Panchayat (now Damnagar Nagarpalika) from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to construct a compound wall/fencing around the Kabrastan. They also sought a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to remove any encroachments over the said Kabrastan land.

3. After contest, the said suit was decreed in part by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003. The trial court declared that the plaintiff Jamat was the owner of plot Nos. 23, 24, 25,26 and 28 (described in the annexed order of District Development Officer dated 13.10.1977, canceling the auction of those plots) and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff Jamat. The trial court however rejected the claim of the plaintiff Jamat in regard to old survey No.248 in the absence of exact measurements and boundaries of the said land.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the said Jamat filed an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Amreli (Regular Civil Appeal No.67/2003). In the said appeal, the following pursis dated 3.8.2004 (Ex.17) was filed by the four trustees of the Jamat :

"We, the appellants submit the said pursis in this case and declare that :-

(1) We, the appellants have filed the present appeal against the respondent. In the said appeal, the consent pursis and agreement has been made between the members of both community and the Panchayat in the decree of the trial court. Therefore, the appeal does not remain to be tried further. Therefore, we withdraw the appeal unconditionally.

(2) The Grampanchayat Damnagar, villagers and the members of the community have to do and behave as per the compromise agreement herewith and carry out the agreement specifically and we withdraw the appeal accordingly.

(3) Therefore, we agree and declare by the pursis that the appeal may be disposed off accordingly."

The said pursis also contained an endorsement by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Damnagar Grampanchayat confirming that they would not insist for any costs of the suit.

5. The compromise agreement referred to in the said pursis dated 3.8.2004 was entered into between two groups of residents of Damnagar, namely the Samast Sunni Muslim Jamat as the leaders of the Muslim Samaj and the leaders of the Samast Hindu Samaj. The said compromise is extracted below :

"(1) The status quo which is obtained by Bavbhai Gajibhai Chudasama and others with respect to the land admeasuring 30,000 Sq.Feet, situated at the eastern side at Chhabhadia Road, allotted vide the Government Order to Shree Akshar Purshottam Swaminarayan Trust shall be withdrawn.

(2) The land admeasuring 120m x 90 feet = 10,800 Sq. Feet situated after leaving the road from Dargah at the western side from the land allotted to the Trust, shall be left for the Sunni Muslim Jamat.

(3) For the social activity no construction activity for constructing the houses by the Sunni Muslim Jamat shall be allowed. The land shall be left for open place.

(4) Pursuant to the order of the Honourable Court from amongst the five plots, the present land is allotted.

(5) Except the land admeasuring 10,800 Sq. Feet allotted to the Sunni Muslim Jamat, all the entire land shall remain of the Akshar Purshottam Trust.

(6) With regard to the said land, now after any party from amongst both the party shall not raise any dispute before the Government Office or in






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top