The main legal point established in the judgment is the value of family arrangements in resolving disputes and bringing harmony in the family, and the finality of settlements made with the consent of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.10.2012 (for brevity “impugned judgment”), passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘trial Court’) in a civil suit titled As Raman Kumar Aggarwal vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and others, whereby the civil suit for partition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as under:-

2. The appellant along with respondent No. 1 and their father Satya Pal Aggarwal were members of joint Hindu family and were running different business concerns and had acquired various moveable and immovable properties either jointly or on individual names of the members of the joint family, having purchased from joint funds of the joint family. A dispute arose between the parties and the appellant filed a suit for declaration and partition before the Court of 2nd Additional District, Judge Jammu on 21.09.2000 being COS No. 10 titled Raman Kumar Aggarwal vs. Satya Pal Aggarwal and others. During the pendency of the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a compromise deed dated 02.02.2001 was executed between the parties registered with the Sub-Registrar, City Jammu on 14.07.2002 specifying the share of each of the parties and the properties which have been in their share. In terms of the compromise deed (supra) 50% share of M/S Sanjay Industries, Gangyal, Jammu alongwith stock-in-trade, building, land beneath and appurtenant thereto and ground floor of House No. 4 Lane No. 2 Shakti Nagar, Jammu comprising of three bed rooms, two living rooms, one dining room-cum,-lobby, one kitchen, one dressing room, three toilets, one bathroom, one store, one puja room, one varanda, one garage and a room of the first floor of the garage and its roof top fell to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal, father of the appellant and respondents 1, 3, 4 and husband of the respondent No. 2. It is stated that after the execution of the compromise deed, respondents 1 and 2 started disputing the terms of the compromise deed and also disputed the share of the appellant and contested the suit for partition filed by the appellant by filing written statements and disputed the terms of the compromise. It is further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal died and respondents were brought on record as legal representatives of Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal. After the death of Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal, a compromise was again arrived at between the parties to the said suit for declaration and partition filed by the appellant in which the respondents admitted the terms of compromise deed dated 02.02.2002 with slight modifications without effecting the share of the property fallen to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal and a decree in terms of compromise deed (supra) with slight modification pertaining to the construction of stairs was passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu on 06.10.2005. After the passing of the decree, share of the property fallen to the share of Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal became his exclusive property in the hands of the respondents after death.

3. It is stated that the respondents also forged a Will alleged to have been executed by Late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal which was challenged by the appellant by way of a civil suit before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu and the said Will vide order dated 06.10.2005 was declared as illegal. Subsequent to passing of the judgments and decrees dated 06.10.2005 in two civil suits, the appellant filed a petition in terms of Section 152 CPC for amendment of decree and judgment dated 06.10.2005. The trial Court after hearing the parties to the said petition modified the decree vide order dated 08.11.2005. The said decree was passed after the death of late Sh. Satya Pal Aggarwal.

4. It is next stated that appellant time and again asked the respondents to parti