Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(J&K) 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rahul Bharti, J.
Balbir Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Veena Kour and others – Respondents
CR No. 10 of 2019
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P. N. Goja, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Jamwal, Advocate

The main legal point established is that the continuation of a suit can be considered an abuse of process of law if there is a compromise decree from a previous suit involving the same parties.

Headnote:
Compromise Deed - Civil Suit - Jammu & Kashmir Civil Procedure Code, 1977 - Order 7 rule 11, Order 12 rule 6 CPC
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a real brother of the respondent no. 1, was involved in a civil suit filed by the respondent no. 1 and others, who are legal representatives of a deceased brother, for declaration of a sale-deed as a benami transaction and claiming ownership of certain land. The suit was challenged based on a compromise decree from a previous suit involving the same parties.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the continuation of the suit was an abuse of process of law and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit in line with the compromise decree from the previous suit.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit in light of the compromise decree from a previous suit involving the same parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuation of the suit was an abuse of process of law and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit in line with the compromise decree from the previous suit.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the lower court was directed to dispose of the suit in line with the compromise decree from the previous suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is real brother of the respondent no. 1. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of late S. Pritam Singh who was also one of the brothers of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1.

2. By virtue of sale-deed dated 17.09.2021, land measuring 17 marlas in khasra no. 74 and 03 marlas in khasra no. 78 min in village Babliana, tehsil and district Jammu came to be purchased by the petitioner so as to become its own or in possession.

3. The respondent no. 1 – Veena Kour joined by S. Pritam Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, came to file a civil suit for declaration for declaring the sale-deed 17.09.2001 with respect to the aforementioned land in favour of the petitioner as being a benami transaction and further declaring them to be the actual owners in respect of the aforesaid land with consequential relief of restraining the petitioner from transferring the said land in any manner, raising any sort of construction or causing interference in their peaceful possession. This suit came to be taken on file no. 139/Civil of the court of the learned City Judge, Jammu and is the one in issue herein.

4. On 14.03.2008, the respondent no. 1 joined by other family members came to file a civil suit no. 16/Civil before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Baramulla against the petitioner herein, his three brothers and one sister. This civil suit was for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the property situated in Baramulla.

5. Thus, in both the aforesaid suits, the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the same family.

6. On 03.04.2008, the parties to the suit no. 16/Civil before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Baramulla came to enter settlement documented in a compromise deed dated 03.04.2008 thereby settling their disputes qua the properties concerning them. Said compromise deed came to be presented for seeking disposal of said civil suit no. 16/Civil in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Baramulla which came to decree the suit accordingly.

7. In terms of the said decree dated 03.04.2008, the respondent no. 1 even came to lay an execution petition before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Baramulla which execution petition later on came to be transferred to the Additional District Judge, Srinagar in terms of order dated 30.08.2013 passed by this Court in a transfer application and lastly to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Sopore.

8. This execution petition so filed by the respondent no. 1 came to have issues of one kind or other cropping up at the instance of the respondent no. 1 or on the part of the petitioner and others, being party to the execution petition.

9. In terms of an order dated 23.04.2016 the transferee executing court of the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar directed the Tehsildar Baramulla to implement the compromise decree dated 03.04.2008 in which regard a report dated 16.02.2016 came to be submitted by the Tehsildar Baramulla bearing reference to a report no. 357/NTA dated 13.06.2016 of the Naib Tehsildar confirming the fact that the compromise decree has been implemented on spot. In fact even the respondent no. 1 on 22.08.2016 had come to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla seeking implementation of the compromise decree in letter and spirit.

10. Later on this execution application came to be transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sopore which in terms of an order dated 12.10.2017 came to pass direction to seek confirmation to the fact as to one of the properties settled in said compromise deed comprising of four marlas of plot had been given to the respondent no. 1 or not. This order dated 12.10.2017 came to be challenged in a civil revision no. 42 of 2017 by the respondent no. 1 before the High Court of J&K, Srinagar Wing.

11. Insofar as, the civil suit filed by the respondent no. 1 joine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document