Allowed

Bahajn Singh v. Rajinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2013RSA/1780/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and injunction concerning suit land based on a compromise deed. The court set aside impugned judgments and decrees permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and decrees dated 7th November 1997 and 20th March 2001 set aside; appeal allowed; permission to respondent No.1 to withdraw suit.

Bahajn Singh Vs Rajinder Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CM No.6943-C of 2013 in & RSA No. 1780 of 2001 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision 07.08.2013.

Bhajan Singh

...... Appellant.

Versus

Rajinder Singh and another ...... Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶9

Present : Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate alongwith applicant/appellant-defendant No.1 in person.

¶10

Mr.Akash Singla, Advocate for the contesting respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶11

Mr.N.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the LR of respondent No.2/defendant no.2.

¶12

Jaswant Singh, J(Oral).

¶13

The dispute is between family members. Rajinder Singh (respondent No.1) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the collusive decree dated 30^th of March, 1994 suffered by his father Nahar Singh (respondent/defendant No.2) in favour of his brother Bhajan Singh/defendant No.1. He also sought to restrain them from alienating the suit land.

¶14

The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff Rajinder Singh vide judgment and decree dated 7^th of November, 1997 by declaring the impugned decree dated 30^th of March, 1994 (Ex.P4) as null and void and further restrained the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner. Defendant No.1 Bhajan Singh filed an appeal and the same

¶15

Anju 2013.08.13 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

-2-

¶17

CM No.6943-C of 2013 in & RSA No. 1780 of 2001 (O&M)

¶18

was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 20^th of March, 2001, Hence the present appeal.

¶19

The appeal was admitted vide order dated 16^th of March 2007 with the interim direction directing the maintenance of status quo regarding possession and alienation.

¶20

During the pendency of the appeal since respondent No.2 Nahar Singh died, his widow and daughter Ranjit Singh were impleaded as LRs of Nahar Singh vide order dated 14^th of November, 2002. The other two LRs i.e. the two sons were already arrayed as parties.

¶21

It is not in dispute that thereafter even the mother Karnail Kaur widow of Nahar Singh/defendant No.2 has died and only the two contesting brothers and the sister Ranjit Kaur remain as parties in the present appeal.

¶22

Thereafter another application has been moved by the appellant bearing No.6943-C of 2013 for disposing of the present appeal in terms of the compromise effected between the family members on 20^th of May, 2013. The compromise deed dated 20^th of May, 2013 has been annexed as Annexure A-1 alongwith its English translation as Annexure A-1/T.

¶23

Upon notice of the application, contesting plaintiff/respondent No.1 has put in appearance alongwith his

¶24

Anju 2013.08.13 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CM No.6943-C of 2013 in & RSA No. 1780 of 2001 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

counsel. He has been duly identified by his counsel. He owns and admits the contents of the compromise deed dated 20^th of May, 2013 whereby it has been agreed that he would have no objection if the present appeal is allowed and both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and he be permitted to withdraw his suit. The sister Ranjit Kaur is also the signatory to the aforesaid compromise and she has also stated on the same lines. The statement of the parties have been separately recorded.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid agreed stand, the present regular second appeal is allowed in view of the compromise deed dated 20.05.2013 (A-1) and both the impugned judgments and decrees dated 7^th of November, 1997 and 20^th of March, 2001 are set aside with permission to respondent No.1/plaintiff to withdraw his suit.

¶29

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

¶30

August 7, 2013 anju

¶31

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶32

Anju 2013.08.13 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bahajn Singh v. Rajinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahajn Singh v. Rajinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishop P.K.Samanta Rao & Ors. Vs Joshil Rai

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs Tejpal and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Khera Oil Tanker Service and Ors.

Amarpreet Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur

Harpreet Kaur @ Gurnam Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh

Prem Lata and Anr. Vs Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind Bank and Ors.