IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Subhasho Devi - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumari & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 805 of 2018 and R.S.A. No. 567 of 2009
Decided On : 11-01-2018
Order 23 Rule 3 - Compromise of Suit - The court allowed the withdrawal of proceedings as the parties had arrived at a compromise, vesting the suit land in the defendant and sharing the house and cowshed equally between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but later allowed by the lower Appellate Court. The defendant appealed to the High Court, but the parties reached a compromise during the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the withdrawal of proceedings and disposed of the appeal in view of the compromise between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership of the land in question and the sharing of other properties between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the parties had entered into a compromise, which was duly supported by affidavits and signed by both the parties and their counsel.
Final Decision: The court allowed the withdrawal of proceedings and directed the preparation of a decree sheet in accordance with the compromise reached by the parties.
JUDGMENT
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —Cmp No. 805 of 2018
The present application, under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been jointly moved by the parties for withdrawal of the proceedings, as the parties have arrived at compromise. As per the applicants, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit before the learned trial Court for declaration that they alongwith the defendant (appellant herein) are owners-in-possession of the land in question (description whereof find mention in para 1 of the application) , which was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment, dated 05.09.2007. Subsequently, the plaintiff assailed the said judgment before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant/appellant preferred the present regular second appeal before this Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein it stand agreed between them that the entire suit land shall vest in defendant, Smt. Subhasho Devi and she will be the sole owner-in-possession of the land, as mentioned in para 1 of the application. The parties have further agreed that pension of late Sh. Govind Ram will be received by the plaintiff, Smt. Vijay Kumari. As far as house and cowshed are concerned, the same will be shared equally half each by both the parties.
2. Heard. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, which is annexed with the application and duly signed by the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that the application is duly supported with the affidavits of all the respective parties and signed by both the learned counsel, the present application is allowed and the parties are allowed to compromise the matter, as prayed for.
3. In view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the present appeal, so also the pending application(s) , if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. CMP No. 805 of 2018, alongwith affidavits of the parties and compromise deed, annexed with the applicantion, shall form part of the decree. Parties to abide by the compromise.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.