The court decreed a compromise suit to mutually set aside an oral exchange followed by a sale deed regarding disputed land. The plaintiff's ownership is restored, and defendant No. 1 agreed to pay compensation.
Set-aside of mutation and sale deed; restoration of plaintiff's ownership; payment of Rs.75,000 by Defendant No.1; withdrawal of criminal case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Suit No. 115 of 2012 Date of decision: 29.05.2013
____________________________________________________ Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni.
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
Shri Bishan Dass & others.
..…Defendants.
_____________________________________________________ Coram_
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No.
____________________________________________________ For the plaintiff: Plaintiff with Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate with Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the defendants: Defendant No. 1 in person. Mr. S.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for defendant No. 2 alongwith her Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Shri Shadi Lal Goswami in person (SPA filed, which is taken on record). Defendant No. 3 ex parte. Defendant No. 4 in person.
V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral).
The case is listed for today for settlement. Though defendants No. 1 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.12.2012, yet since defendant No. 1 is present in the Court today in person, as prayed for, defendant No. 1 is permitted to join further proceedings in the suit.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2
Attorney of defendant No. 2 that the inter se dispute between the parties to the suit, except defendant No. 3, Shri Subhash Chand, Namberdar, who was simply a witness to the disputed oral exchange effected vide mutation No. 3514, dated 28.01.2009, of Mauja Kuthera, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., followed by sale deed No. 586 of 2009 dated 26.03.2009 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Amb, District Una, H.P., on the basis of order No. 182, dated 12.01.2009 of the Assistant Collector Grade-II (Naib Tehsildar), Settlement, Una, H.P., albeit the allegation against him being that he was also a party to the fraudulent exchange, as aforesaid, have entered into compromise. Their statements have been recorded separately, which are also endorsed by the learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2, which shall form part of the compromise decree.
(i) As agreed between the contesting parties, the aforesaid oral exchange effected vide mutation No. 3514, dated 28.01.2009, of Mauja Kuthera, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., followed by sale deed No. 586 of 2009 dated 26.03.2009 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Amb, District Una, H.P., on the basis of order dated 12.01.2009 of the Assistant Collector Grade-II (Naib Tehsildar), Settlement, Una, H.P., are hereby declared as null and void and accordingly set-aside for all intents and purposes and shall have no validity, whatsoever, henceforth. Consequently, joint owner-ship and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land to the
3
extent of his share therein measuring 18 Marlas, vide jamabandi for the year 1983-84, shall stand restored to him in Khewat No. 183, Khatauni No. 233, Khasra No. 409, measuring 7 Kanals, 12 Marlas, situate at Mauja Kuthera.
(ii) Defendant No. 1, Shri Bishan Dass, shall pay a sum of ` 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) to the plaintiff, Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni @ Chhotu Ram (R.K. Soni) on or before 30.06.2013 by remitting the amount to his bank account bearing No. 3383000100002501 with Punjab National Bank, Lift Road, The Mall, Shimla -1, H.P. In order to ensure compliance of this covenant of compromise, defendant No. 1, Shri Bishan Dass, shall file an usual undertaking in this Court within two days hereafter, failing which and further failing to abide by the undertaking he shall be liable for contempt of Court.
(iii) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to take follow up action to get the compromise decree implemented in the revenue record and the records of the Sub Registrar in accordance with law.
(iv) The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of compromise in letter and spirit and failure to do so shall entail consequences as per law, including implementation of the compromise decree through intervention of this Court.
(v) Pursuant to compromise between the contesting parties, the plaintiff shall take all requisite steps for withdrawal of
4
the criminal case registered against the defendants vide FIR No. 64 of 2013, dated 20.05.2013 at Police Sation, Amb, District Una, H.P., within 30 days from receipt of the aforesaid sum of ` 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) from defendant No. 1.
of in the above terms. Let compromise decree be drawn accordingly. The plaintiff shall be entitled for refund of court fee in accordance with rules.
May 29, 2013
(virender)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disputed land acquisition via mutation and sale deed should be set aside following a compromise decree.
WhetherRs.75,000 compensation should be paid to the plaintiff as per the settlement terms.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni
Shri Bishan Dass
V.K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
