A compromise decree must be in writing, signed by the parties, and recorded by the court. The court must also be satisfied that the compromise is lawful and that it satisfies the court of the adjustment of the whole or part of the claim in terms of such lawful compromise.

1. Chand Kaur has preferred the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-3-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, affirming the decree passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar dated 23-2-1995.

2. As the present appeal raises substantial questions of law, it will be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts. The plaintiff Chand Kaur, hereinafter referred to as the appellant; had filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner in possession of the land comprising of Khewat/ Khatauni No. 218/318, Khasra No. 34, 23/6/2, 8/4, 27/15/1, 15/2, Khewat Khatauni No. 219/319, 320, Khasra No. 23/ 14/1 min, 17/ 2, 23/14/1 min, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 of village Barsalpur. Tehsil and District Ropar.

3. Defendant No. 1 Raj Kaur in the suit expired during the pendency of the present appeal and vide order dated 7-3-1996 the Court had permitted the applicants in C.M. No. 1018-C of 1996 to be impleaded as intermeddlers leaving the question of validity and any other challenges to the will open to be determined in appropriate proceedings.

4. This suit was contested seriously by three different groups of defendants, namely, (i) Raj Kaur; (ii) Sadhu Singh and others being defendants Nos. 2 to 7 in the suit; and (iii) Jagir Singh and Kamail Singh defendants Nos. 8 and 9 in the suit. All these different sets of defendants had filed their respective written statements and were contesting the suit. The learned trial Court vide order dated 23-2-1995 passed an order directing ex parte proceedings to be taken against defendants Nos. 2 to 7 as nobody had appeared on their behalf in spite of the fact that the case had been called out time and again. Vide the same order the learned trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in favour of parties on the basis of a compromise. It will be appropriate to reproduce the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 23-2-1995 hereunder :-

"None has appeared on behalf of defendants Nos. 2 to 7. Case called time and again. It is now 3.15 p.m. Hence ex parte proceedings are taken against defendants Nos. 2 to 7.Case is fixed for evidence of the defendants and today is the last opportunity, but compromise between the parties has been effected. Statement of Chand Kaur-plaintiff on S. A. recorded. She has stated that Court has got effected compromise between the parties and as per the compromise she may be declared owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share out of land in dispute, while Raj Kaur defendant No. 1 be declared owner in possession to the extent of 1 if 3rd share out of the land in dispute and Jagir Singh and Karnail Singh defendants Nos. 8 and 9 be declared owners -in possession in equal shares of the remaining 1/3rd share of the land in dispute and that suit be decided accordingly. Separate statement of Raj Kaur, defendant No. 1 recorded. She has accepted the statement of Chand Kaur-plaintiff and stated that suit be decided as per her statement. Separate statement of Darshan Singh, Attorney of Karnail Singh defendant No. 9 on S. A. and Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate counsel for Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 also recorded. They have stated that they have heard the statements of Chand Kaur-plaintiff and Raj Kaur, defendant No. 1 and they accept the same as correct and suit be decided accordingly.

5 In view of statements of the parties recorded today a decree for declaration that Chand Kaur-plaintiff is owner in possession of the 1/3rd share out of the land in dispute and that Raj Kaur alias Laj Wanti, defendant No. 1 is owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share out of the land in dispute and that defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are owners in possession in equal share of the remaining J/3rd share of the land in dispute, is passed in their favour and against defendants Nos. 2 to 7. Decree against defendants Nos. 2 to 7 is, however, ex parte. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rupees 500/-.