Allowed

Bhoma Ram v. Smt.Shanti Devi

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2023CFA/27/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in a civil first appeal. Upon a joint submission that the parties had settled amicably, the court permitted the plaintiff respondents to withdraw the suit and consequently set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below.

What did the court decide?

The suit was permitted to be withdrawn and the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004 in Civil Original Suit No.14/2001 were quashed and set aside. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Bhoma Ram Vs Smt.Shanti Devi — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25728]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 27/2005

¶4

Legal representatives of Late Shri Bhomaram Son of Sh. Chuni Ram (Deceased).

¶5

1/1. Smt. Pani Wife of Late Sh. Bhomaram, by caste Jat, resident of Village-Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶6

1/2. Shyokaran Son of Late Sh. Bhomaram, by caste Jat, resident of Village- Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶7

1/3. Parmeshwari Daughter of Late Sh. Bhomaram, Wife of Sh. Mahaveer, by caste Jat, resident of Rampuria, Tehsil & District – Sirsa (Hariyana)

¶8

1/4. Legal representatives of Late Sh. Dalip Son of Late Sh. Bhomaram:-

¶9

1/4/1. Smt. Meera Wife of Late Sh. Dalip 1/4/2. Durga Daughter of Late Sh. Dalip 1/4/3. Saroj Daughter of Late Sh. Dalip 1/4/4. Thapa Daughter of Late Sh. Dalip 1/4/5. Sher Singh Son of Late Sh. Dalip

¶10

1/4/6. Tiku Ram Son of Late Sh. Dalip Appellants No.1/4/2 to 1/4/6 are by caste Jat, resident of Village Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangah (Rajasthan).

¶11

Appellants No.1/4/1 to 1/4/6 are by caste Jat, resident of Village Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶12

1/5. Legal representatives of Late Shrawan Son of Late Sh. Bhomaram

¶13

1/5/1. Smt. Badu Wife of Late Sh. Shrawan

¶14

1/5/2. Vinod Kumar Son of Late Sh. Shrawan

¶15

1/5/3. Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Sh. Shrawan

¶16

Appellants No.1/5/2 & 1/5/3 are minor through their natural Guardian Mother Smt. Badu Wife of Late Sh. Shrawan.

¶17

Appellants No.1/5/1 to 1/5/3 are by caste Jat, resident of Village Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶18

1/6. Amar Singh Son of Late Sh. Bhomaram, by caste Jat, resident of Village Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶19

1/7. Krishna Daughter of Late Sh. Bhomaram, Wife of Sh.

¶20

(2 of 3) [CFA-27/2005]

¶21

[2023:RJ-JD:25728]

¶22

Jagatpal, by caste Jat, resident of Rampuria, Tehsil & District Sirsa (Hariyana).

¶23

----Appellants

¶24

Versus

¶25

Legal representatives of Late Smt.shanti Devi Wife of Sh. Ramji Lal:1/1. Shri Ramji Lal, Husband of Late Smt. Shanti Devi, 1/2. Pal Ram Son of Sh. Ramji Lal, 1/3. Sushil Son of Sh. Ramji Lal

¶26

all are resident of Village Post Netharana, Tehsil Bhandra, District Hanumangarh.

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

For Appellant(s) : Mr. KR Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. GR Bhari

¶29

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶30

Order

¶31

16/08/2023

¶32

An application has been preferred jointly by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents with the submission that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement vide which it has been agreed between the parties that the amount qua the mesne profit as deposited by the appellants in the execution proceedings would be received by the legal representatives of the plaintiff respondent Smt. Shanti Devi. It has further been agreed that the legal representatives of Smt. Shanti Devi would receive an amount of Rs.10 lacs qua the agreed sale deed in question. Counsel for respondents submitted that the said amount has subsequently been received by them.

¶33

In the application, although only a prayer for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree has been made but today

¶34

(3 of 3) [CFA-27/2005]

¶35

[2023:RJ-JD:25728]

¶36

learned counsel for the respondents plaintiff, on instructions, prayed to withdraw the suit itself in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶37

In view of the submission made, the plaintiff respondents are permitted to withdraw the suit.

¶38

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant defendant is allowed . The judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nohar in Civil Original Suit No.14/2001 is quashed and set aside.

¶39

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶41

117-KashishS/-

Bhoma Ram v. Smt.Shanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoma Ram v. Smt.Shanti Devi

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

Uda So Kana Vs Kana and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Varad Singh and Ors.

Gulshan Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Raghunandan

Shankar Das Vs Magha Ram

Govind Bansal Vs Shiv Ram and Ors.

Mangi Lal Vs Shera Ram