Allowed

Shakuntala Devi Jain And Ors. v. Shantilal Jain And Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2019SA/203/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the High Court considered a joint compromise petition filed after the first appellate court set aside the trial court decree. The court allowed the compromise petition and disposed of the appeal by decreeing the suit terms of the settlement and allotment of land shares.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is disposed of; the suit is decreed in terms of the joint compromise petition filed as I.A. No. 483 of 2019, with the trial and appellate court decrees set aside.

Shakuntala Devi Jain And Ors. Vs Shantilal Jain And Anr. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A No. 203 of 2004

¶2

With

¶3

I.A. No. 483 of 2019

¶4

1 (i)Shakuntala Devi Jain

¶5

(ii) Subhash Kr. Jain

¶6

(iii)Sunil Kr. Jain

¶7

(iv) Rajiv Kr. Jain

¶8

i) Kanak Mala Jain

¶9

ii) Sanjay Kumar Jain …. …. Appellant(s).

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shantilal Jain

¶12

Rajkumar Jain …. …. Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶15

¶16

FOR THE APPELLANT(S) : Mr. L.K. Lal, Advocate

¶17

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : Mr. Binod Kumar, J. C to Mr. Shankar Prasad, Advocate

¶18

¶19

07/23.07.2019

¶20

Partition Suit No. 22 of 1990 was filed by Mahabir Prasad Jain and Others against Ghisu Lal Jain and Others praying for a decree for partition of the joint properties. The suit was decreed in contest. It was declared that plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for partition and for a separate Takhta of their half share in the suit property and was also entitled for possession over the same as per the share. Preliminary decree was passed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant in the suit preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, being Title Appeal No. 28 of 2003. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and the preliminary decreed passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs approached this Court by filing second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The appeal was admitted on 11.8.2016 on the following substantial question of law:-

¶21

“ Whether the learned lower appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court has properly met the reasonings of the trial court ?”

¶22

2. During the pendency of this appeal, a joint compromise petition has been filed which is numbered as I.A. No. 483 of 2019. In the said compromise petition, the parties have stated that in presence of common well-wishers and the family members, all the members of appellants as well as the respondents have compromised the case wilfully and without any pressure. In paragraph no.2 of the I.A. No. 483 of 2019 it has been mentioned that as per the terms of compromise, all the members of the appellants are ready to relinquish their right

¶23

-2-

¶24

over the land which is schedule –A to the joint compromise petition. Further in respect of land in Schedule-B, ten annas have been allotted to the appellants and six annas have been allotted to the respondents for which map has already been annexed. The details of the compromise has been set-forth in the joint compromise petition along with sketch map showing the share of each of the parties.

¶25

3. It is prayed by both the parties that appeal be decreed in terms of the joint compromise petition which has been filed in the second appeal being I.A. No. 483 of 2019.

¶26

4. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that both the parties have compromised the dispute. The terms of the compromise has been mentioned in several paragraphs of the joint compromise petition. With the compromise petition a sketch map has already been annexed.

¶27

5. Considering the fact that parties have compromised their dispute. I am inclined to allow the I.A. No. 483 of 2019. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court and appellate court are set aside. The suit is decreed in terms of the joint compromise petition i.e I.A. No. 483 of 2019.

¶28

6. Office is directed to prepare decree in terms of the joint compromise petition which will also form part of the decree.

¶29

7. In terms of the joint compromise petition, this second appeal stands disposed of.

¶30

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶31

anjali/ C.P 2

Shakuntala Devi Jain And Ors. v. Shantilal Jain And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Devi Jain And Ors. v. Shantilal Jain And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Sao And Anr. Vs Kunal Chakraborty

Beni Madhav Mishra Vs Smt Chandrawati Devi and Ors.

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through D C Seraikella Kharsawan and Anr.

salim raza and Ors. Vs Mohan Mistry And Ors.

Jageshwar Prajapati and Anr. Vs Ram Lagan Prajapati and Ors.

Smt Sumitra Devi Vs Mr Mahendra Mistry and Anr.