A compromise decree's unambiguous terms govern claims over compensation amounts, barring revision attempts by parties seeking to contest prior agreements.

Judgment :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of the order, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., dated 07.07.2025, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code to issue direction to judgment debtor to release 50% of compensation of land belonging to Smt. Indrawati, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner Rajeev Bansal filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Nahan. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.06.1999 dismissed the suit as preferred by the present petitioner. As per averments as made in the plaint, it was alleged that one Shri Kaka Ram, son of Roada Mal was the owner of the land in village Joharon, Tehsil Nahan. He had three sons, namely, S/Shri Shanti Sarup, Ram Sarup and Gopal Dass. Shri Ram Sarup died on 14th Chait 1998, (1941 AD) during the lifetime of his father Kaka Ram and was survived by his wife Indrawati and his son Naresh Kumar. Shri Naresh Kumar also died during the life time of Kaka Ram.

3. It was stated in the plaint that, after the demise of Kaka Ram, his sons Shanti Sarup and Gopal Dass entered into a family settlement on 25.04.2001, whereby 1/3rd share in the total land situated in village Joharon was kept apart as maintenance to Smt. Indrawati, wife of Ram Sarup and Smt.Surgi Devi, grandmother of the parties, but the same was relinquished in favour of Shanti Sarup, in lieu of providing maintenance to both Smt. Sugri Devi and Smt. Indrawati, whereas the remaining 2/3rd share in the land was divided and partitioned between Shanti Sarup and Gopal Dass in equal shares. It was further averred that after the separation of 1/3rd share of Gopal Dass, the remaining land measuring 155-02 bighas in village Joharon came into possession of Shanti Sarup as owner in the said family settlement. Thus, he claimed his exclusive ownership in the suit land. In the alternative, Shanti Sarup also claimed to have become owner qua the alleged share of Indrawati by virtue of adverse possession. The suit land is shown to be owned and possessed by Shanti Sarup and Indrawati, widow of Ram Sarup, in equal share. However, said Indrawati left the house and remarried to one Shri Balkrishan Goyal of Delhi in 1948 AD. Therefore, under the old Hindu Law prevalent, at that time, she forfeited her right to maintenance, also, and the suit land reverted back to Shanti Sarup, brother of Ram Sarup. It was averred that upon the remarriage of Indrawati to Balkrishan Goyal, her share was reverted back to Shanti Sarup only and therefore, he became the full owner of the suit land. Indrawati was not competent to execute the Will qua her share in the suit land in favour of Parkash Chand on 21/22.08.1984, nor he was entitled to get the mutation of her share in the suit land.

4. After the dismissal of the suit on 14.06.1999, the present petitioner Rajeev Bansal preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur on 20.07.1999. The learned District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000 accepted the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the present petitioner for declaration that he is the exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit land was decreed. As a consequential relief, defendant No.1/present respondent Parkash Chand was restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/present petitioner over the suit land.

5. Against the judgment and de