Disposed¶63

Purushottam v. Sunder Bai

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jan 2024FA/79/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compromise-decree disposal; NAFR. High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; First Appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 2016; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; decided 10.01.2024. Appeals against common judgment and decree dated 28.01.2016 of District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013. Parties settled outside Court; application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. moved in F.A. No. 79/2016; statements recorded before Registrar (Judicial); plaintiffs No. 1 to 10 relinquished rights over suit property for Rs.13 lacs, received from defendants No. 1 to 4; application allowed; both appeals disposed of in terms of settlement; decree to be drawn accordingly; order forms part of compromise decree.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals disposed of in terms of the settlement between the parties; decree to be drawn accordingly; this order shall form part of the compromise decree.

Purushottam Vs Sunder Bai — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals disposed of in terms of the settlement between the parties; decree to be drawn accordingly; this order shall form part of the compromise decree.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether both appeals may be disposed of by recording a compromise decree on the strength of the settlement reached between the parties outside the Court under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., the compromise being neither against public policy nor an outcome of coercion, greed or force.

¶58

Court's answer

It is apparent that plaintiffs No. 1 to 10 relinquished their rights over the suit property for Rs.13 lacs.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the above-stated facts, the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. is allowed.

¶62

Key takeaways

Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of the settlement reached between the parties; a decree shall be drawn accordingly and this order shall form part of the compromise decree.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NAFR. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR - First Appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 2016, disposed of on 10.01.2024 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey (single judge). Both appeals were directed against the common judgment and decree dated 28.01.2016 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013; First Appeal No. 78 of 2016 was preferred by Deepika and Sangeeta, daughters of Purushottam, and First Appeal No. 79 of 2016 by appellants No. 1 to 4/defendants No. 1 to 4 (Purushottam, Sanjay, Lakhan and Krishna Singh), with Sunder Bai and eight others as Respondents/Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 10 and the State of Chhattisgarh as Defendant. Before this Court, the parties settled the matter outside Court; an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was moved in F.A. No. 79/2016 with the terms of compromise reduced to writing, and the statements of the parties were recorded before the Registrar (Judicial). Counsel submitted that plaintiffs No. 1 to 10 had relinquished their rights over the suit property for Rs.13 lacs, which amount had already been received from defendants No. 1 to 4, and that the compromise was not against public policy nor an outcome of coercion, greed or force. Finding it apparent that the relinquishment had occurred for Rs.13 lacs, the Court allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., disposed of both appeals in terms of the settlement, ordered a decree to be drawn accordingly, and declared that the order shall form part of the compromise decree.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

First Appeal No. 78 of 2016

¶5

Deepika, D/o Purushottam, aged 24 years,

¶6

Sangeeta, D/o Purushottam, aged 22 years,

¶7

Both are R/o Village- Rampura, Tahsil- Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sunder Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 65 years, R/o Rampura, Tahsil Saja, Presently R/o Jevra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶11

Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 32 years

¶12

Sunil Kumar, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 25 years

¶13

Madvamni, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 21 years

¶14

Chandra Vijay, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 19 years

¶15

Ku. Manju, D/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 17 years

¶16

Ku. Kajal, D/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 11 years Respondents No. 6 & 7 are minor through their fair weathered friend elder brother Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 32 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jevera (N), PO Nandal, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶17

Pushpakali Bai, W/o Puranlal Sanimi, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Taksiva, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶18

Hemin Bai, W/o Seshnarayan Satnami, aged about 28 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kapuva, Tahsil Patariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶19

Mohan, S/o Dukudas Satnami, aged about 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jevra (N), Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶20

Purushottam, S/o Konda Satnami, aged about 70 years, Occupation Agriculture

¶21

Sanjay, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 21 years

¶22

Lakhan, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 19 years

¶23

Krishna Singh, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 11 years

¶24

Respondent No. 14 is minor through the natural guardian mother Sushila Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami Respondents No. 11 to 14 are R/o Village Rampura, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶25

Sushila Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rampura, Tahsil Saja, District

¶26

¶27

Bemetara (C.G.)

¶28

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bemetara (C.G.)

¶29

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶30

And

¶31

First Appeal No. 79 of 2016

¶32

Purushottam, S/o Konda Satnami, aged about 70 years, Occupation Agriculture

¶33

Sanjay, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 21 years

¶34

Lakhan, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 19 years

¶35

Krishna Singh, S/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 11 years Respondent No. 4 is minor through the natural guardian mother Sushila Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami All are R/o Village- Rampura, Tahsil- Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶36

---- Appellants/Defendants No. 1 to 4

¶37

Versus

¶38

Sunder Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 65 years, R/o Rampura, Tahsil Saja, Presently R/o Jevra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶39

Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 32 years

¶40

Sunil Kumar, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 25 years

¶41

Madvamni, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 21 years

¶42

Chandra Vijay, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 19 years

¶43

Ku. Manju, D/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 17 years

¶44

Ku. Kajal, D/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 11 years

¶45

Respondents No. 6 & 7 are minor through their fair weathered friend elder brother Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Mohan Satnami, aged about 32 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jevra (N), PO Nandal, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶46

Pushpakali Bai, W/o Puranlal Sanimi, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Taksiva, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶47

Hemin Bai, W/o Seshnarayan Satnami, aged about 28 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kapuva, Tahsil Patariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶48

Mohan, S/o Dukudas Satnami, aged about 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jevra (N) Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶49

---- Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶50

Sushila Bai, W/o Purushottam Satnami, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rampura, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶51

---- Respondent/Defendant No. 5

¶52

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Respondent/Defendant No. 6

¶53

¶54

For Appellants :	Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate in both the appeals
For Respondents No. 1 to 10 :	Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate holding
in F.A. No. 78/2016	the brief of Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 10 :	Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
in F.A. No. 79 of 2016
For State :	Ms. Ishwari Gritlahare, Advocate

¶55

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶56

10.01.2024

¶57

First Appeal No. 78 of 2016 is preferred by the appellants who are daughters of Purushottam, appellant No.1/defendant No. 1 in First Appeal No. 79 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 79 of 2016 is preferred by appellants No. 1 to 4/defendants No. 1 to 4. Both appeals are preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 28.01.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 22A/2013 by the District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.).

¶58

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Mr. Rohan Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocates would jointly submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. has been moved in F.A. No. 79/2016 as parties have arrived at a settlement outside the Court and terms of the compromise has been reduced into writing. They would further submit that the statement of the parties has been recorded before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. It is also submitted that compromise between the parties is not against the public policy and it is not an outcome of coercion, greed, force etc., therefore, they would pray to record a compromise decree.

¶59

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application and the statement of the parties.

¶60

¶61

It is apparent that plaintiffs No. 1 to 10 have relinquished their rights over the suit property for Rs.13 lacs and the learned counsels for the plaintiffs fairly submitted that they have already received Rs.13 lacs from defendants No. 1 to 4.

¶62

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the above-stated facts, the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. is allowed.

¶63

Both the appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of the above-stated settlement between the parties. A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶64

This order shall form part of the compromise decree.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶67

vatti

Purushottam v. Sunder Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam v. Sunder Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Shabana Nisha Rani Vs Smt. Rama Bai

Paras Pandey Vs Nohar Prasad Pandey

K. K. Sharma Vs Abraham Swami

Saguna Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh