ORDER :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. This second appeal, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2005, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Anupshahar, District Bulandshahar in Civil Appeal no. 2 of 2004 (Jageshwar Dayal and others Vs. Rajjan Lal), which affirms the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2003, entered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahar, in Original Suit no. 231 of 2001, Jageshwar Dayal and others Vs. Rajjan Lal.

2. This second appeal is instituted by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit no. 231 of 2001, Jageshwar Dayal and others Vs. Rajjan Lal.

3. The following genealogical table, depicts the respective positions of parties, to the litigation:

IMAGE

4. The plaintiffs-appellants brought civil action, against the defendant-respondent, by instituting a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 231 of 2001, Jageshwar Dayal and others Vs. Rajjan Lal before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahar. The plaintiffs-appellants in the suit claimed to be true owners in possession of the property in dispute and sought a declaration to that effect. It was further prayed, that the defendant-respondent be injuncted, from interfering with the peaceful possession, of the plaintiffs-appellants, over the property in dispute. The third relief, sought by the plaintiffs-appellants, was to restrain the defendant-respondent, from alienating the disputed property in favour, of a third party.

5. Before the issues were framed, a written compromise, purportedly executed between the parties on 30.05.2001, was filed in the learned trial court. The defendant-respondent, by application 27Ga-2, denied the compromise.

6. The learned trial court vide order dated 24.09.2002 rejected the application 27Ga-2 of the defendant-respondent. The order dated 24.09.2002, found that the compromise is only a document in the record, and till the court passes appropriate orders, the compromise is ineffective and cannot be acted upon.

7. The trial court framed the following issues;

"(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the entire property in dispute?

(ii) Whether the plaint was under valued and there was a deficiency in court fee?

(iii) Whether disputed property is a joint property of the parties in which all parties are entitled to an equal share?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief?

8. The issues were framed i.e. on 07.08.2003, and the issue no. 2 was decided, on date. By order dated 07.08.2003, the learned trial court, found that the valuation of the property in dispute was Rs. 10,000/-. The learned trial court, by the said order, directed the plaintiffs-appellants, to amend the valuation of the plaint and deposit the deficient court fee, within a period of one week. Additional time was granted by the court, since the defects were not rectified in time.

9. However, the plaintiffs-appellants did not carry out the necessary amendment, nor did they deposit the deficient court fee. On 28.10.2003, an application registered as Paper No. 34-A/1 was moved by the plaintiffs-appellants, for enlargement of time to cure the deficiencies.

10. The ordersheet of the learned trial court goes silent thereafter, on whether the amendment was carried out or not, and whether the plaintiffs-appellants had deposited the deficient court fees.

11. The original records, of the learned trial court, are before this Court. Learned counsel for both the parties perused the record. The learned counsels for both the parties, confirm that the plaintiffs-appellants did not carry out the amendment in the plaint, and failed to deposit the deficient court fees. No orders were passed on application marked as Paper No. 34A/1. These undisputed facts, lie at the core of the controversy, in this appeal.

12. An application, numbered as Application no. 35-A/2 was filed, by the defendant-respondent, before the learned trial court on 04.12.2003, to decree the suit, in light of the compromise agreement, dated 30.05.