Allowed

Smt.Gurmel Kaur and Anr. v. Smt.Sujan Kaur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2021CFA/667/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application to admit a compromise. The court ordered the appeal and the judgment in the underlying civil suit to be allowed accordingly, setting aside the decree in favor of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The compromise was taken on record, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree in the underlying suit were set aside. Funds deposited were refunded.

Smt.Gurmel Kaur and Anr. Vs Smt.Sujan Kaur and… — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 667/2006

¶4

Smt. Gurmel Kaur W/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh Aged about 58 years R/o Dabli Rathan Bas Kutub, Teh & Distt. Hanumangarh (L. R. of Late Sh. Kala Singh Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.1), deceased through LR’s -

¶5

1/1. Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Satnam Singh Aged 55 years R/o Dabli Rathan Bas Kutub, Teh & Distt. Hanumangarh. 1/2. Veerpal Kaur W/o Sh. Jagraj Singh Aged 35 years R/o Dadu Distt. Sirsa (Haryana).

¶6

1/3. Raj Kaur W/o Bhola Singh Aged 33 years R/o Jandawali Teh. and Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶7

1/4. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Sh. Pargar Singh Aged 31 years R/o Mithi Fulo Distt. Bhatinda (Punjab).

¶8

1/5. Brijender Kaur W/o Avtar Singh Aged 29 years R/o Jandawali Teh and Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶9

1/6 Jagseer Singh s/o Ranjeet Singh R/o Dabli Rathan Kutub Bas Teh. And Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶10

1/7. Hargovind Singh S/o Sh. Ranjeet Aged 22 years R/o Dabli Rathan Kutub Bas, Teh and Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶11

Malkeet Singh S/o Sh. Balveer Singh Aged about 35 years, R/o Karnisar, Teh and Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶12

----Appellants (Defendants No.2 & 3)

¶13

Versus

¶14

Smt. Sujan Kaur W/o Sh/ Baldeo Singh Aged about 51 years, R/o Karnisar, Teh. And Distt. Hanumangarh. Respondent/Defendant No.1

¶15

Kala Singh S/o Sh. Lal singh Aged about 83 years, R/o Karnisar, Teh & Distt. Hanumangarh presently in the house of Jeet Singh Driver Near Kothe of Dr. Barar Dabliwas Kutub, Hanumangarh, Deceased through LR’s2/1. Nand Kaur W/o Sh. Kala Singh, R/o Ward no.8, Dablirathan (Kutub) Teh. Hanumangarh.

¶16

2/2. Malkeet Kaur W/o Laljeet Singh, R/o Talwandi, Sabo Teh. Talwandi Distt. Bhatinda (Punjab).

¶17

2/3. Sukhjeet Kaur W/o Ajayab Singh R/o 40 F, Teh. Karanpur, Distt. Sri Ganganagar.

¶18

2/4. Baldev Singh S/o Kala Singh, R/o Karnisar Teh. Hanumangarh.

¶19

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶20

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain (through VC). Mr. Rakesh Matoria. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi. Mr. Neeraj Bhargava.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

(2 of 3)

[CFA-667/2006]

16/08/2021

The matter comes upon an application filed by the appellants for taking on record the compromise and decide the appeal in terms of the compromise.

¶26

By order dated 29.07.2021, the parties were directed to remain present before the Court for verification of the compromise.

¶27

Pursuant to the said direction the parties were present before the Court on 10.08.2021, when the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) was directed to verify the compromise.

¶28

Dy. Registrar (Judicial) has indicated that appellant Nos.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 (through power of attorney holder), 1/5, 1/6 & appellant No.2 were present in person. Appellant No.1/7 was not present. Further respondent No.1 & respondent No.2/4 were present in person, rest of the respondent Nos.2/1, 2/2 & 2/3 were not present.

¶29

The contents of the compromise were read over and explained to the parties, who were present in person, which was accepted by them to be true and correct. The parties present were identified by their counsel Mr. Vikas Bishnoi and Mr. Trilok Joshi. Based on the above, the compromise has been verified to the extent of the parties present.

¶30

Further indications were made that the names of certain parties did not match with their identification document, however, they were dully identified by their respective counsel.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the nature of decree, wherein, the suit filed by respondent No.1 – Smt. Sujan Kaur seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 16.07.1990 was decreed and the fact that original

¶32

(3 of 3) [CFA-667/2006]

¶33

defendant No.2 – Smt. Gurmal Kaur in whose favour Kala Singh her father-in-law had executed gift deed, has transferred the property to appellant No.2 – Malkeet Singh, the presence of appellant No.1/7 – Hargovind Singh, son of defendant No.2 – Gurmal Kaur and 2/1, 2/2 & 2/3 - legal representatives of Kala Singh is of no consequence as the only concerned party is the plaintiff – respondent No.1.

¶34

The said aspect is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶35

In view of the submissions made, the application filed by the appellants is allowed. The compromise as verified is taken on record, and in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fastrack), Hanumangarh, in Civil Original Suit No. 95/2005 (44/2000) is set aside.

¶36

The amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the interim order dated 07.09.2007 passed by this Court and ordered to be placed in fixed deposit, be refunded back to the appellant No.2.

¶37

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶38

44-Sachin/-

Smt.Gurmel Kaur and Anr. v. Smt.Sujan Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Gurmel Kaur and Anr. v. Smt.Sujan Kaur 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

Mamta Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhunda Ram and Anr. Vs Smt.Sonu Kanwar and Ors.

Ganpat Ram @ Gunesh Ram Vs Imarti Devi

State of Rajasthan Vs Narendra Singh Lalas

Jule Khan Vs Gulam Rasool and Ors.

Municipal Board, Barmer Vs Barmer Bhawan Nirman Sehakari Samiti Ltd.