SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 730

AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3137
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.Sathasivam,J.
Bakshi Dev Raj & Anr. .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sudhir Kumar .... Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4641-4642 OF 2009
Decided on : 4th AUGUST, 2011.

Headnote:A) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.47(1) R.1(1):- This appeal arises out of a declaratory suit which was dismissed earlier by the trial court but which was partly allowed in Second Appeal by the High Court on the basis of a compromise arrived by the parties and reported by the counsels and also a review petition after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Held the dismissal of Special Leave Petition is no bar for filing a review petition before the High Court. Held also that the counsels can report a compromise to the court and on that basis the appellate court can validly pass a decree in terms of such compromise.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 18.03.2008 and 08.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in Civil Second Appeal No. 19 of 2005 and Review Petition (C) No. D-5 of 2008 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal and the review petition filed by the appellants herein.

2) Brief facts:

(a) Shri Harbans Lal, father of the appellant No.1, purchased the land in dispute measuring 40 kanal 4 marlas bearing Khasra No. 65 in Village Chak Gainda, Tehsil Kathua from one Gurdas by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1959. The

said land falls in Khasra No. 109/65 and the same was recorded in the name of the father of the appellant No.1 and after his father's death the name of appellant No.1 was recorded from Kharif 1987.

(b) The plot of Sudhir Kumar-the respondent herein is on the southern side of the land of the appellants. On 29.04.1991, the respondent herein filed a civil suit being No. 17/Civil/1991 in the Court of sub-Judge, Kathua seeking

declaratory decree to the effect that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land measuring and bounded by East Kathua Kalibari Road 90' West Police Line measuring 96', North Land of Bakshi Dev Raj (appellant No. 1 herein) and South, Lane 460' situated at Ward No.1 Village Chak Gainda, Tehsil Kathua and further sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein in the suit land. On 06.04.1993, the appellants herein filed a joint written statement in the above civil suit. The trial Court, vide

judgment dated 25.04.2003, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent herein.

(c) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed Civil First Appeal No.6 in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kathua. The first appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.06.2005, set aside the judgment and order dated 25.04.2003, passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent.

(d) Challenging the same, the appellants filed Second Appeal No. 19 of 2005 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu. Vide judgment dated 18.03.2008, the second appeal was disposed of by the High Court by modifying the decree

with the consent of both the parties.

(e) Against the said order, a special leave petition bearing S.L.P. (C) No. 10939 of 2008 was filed by the appellants herein before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.05.2008. On 21.05.2008, the appellants filed a review

petition being Review Petition (C) No. D-5/2008 before the High Court for review of the order dated 18.03.2008 passed in Second Appeal. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 08.09.2008, dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants.

(f) Aggrieved by the final orders dated 18.03.2008 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal and the order dated 08.09.2008 in the review petition, the appellants filed the present appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions.

3) Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

4) The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are:

i) Whether Review Petition (C) No. D-5/2008 filed before the High Court against the judgment in Second Appeal No. 19 of 2005 is maintainable in view of dismissal of SLP (C) No. 10939 of 2008 dated 14.05.2008 by this Court filed against the said Second Appeal?

ii) Whether the statement of the counsel conveying that the parties have settled and modified the decree without a written document or consent from the appellants is acceptable? and

iii) Whether dismissal of SLP a

























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top