Partly allowed

Smt.Sushma and Anr. v. Roop Chand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2023CFA/81/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals disposed of upon parties reaching an out-of-court compromise verified by the Registrar. Impugned decree modified per compromise terms; another decree quashed.

What did the court decide?

Compromise deemed executed; decree in Appeal No. 80/2011 modified per compromise; decree in Appeal No. 81/2011 quashed.

What the court decided

Smt.Sushma and Anr. Vs Roop Chand and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:23069]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 80/2011

¶4

Shri Kishan since deceased, through Legal Representatives1/1. Sushama W/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 63 years, 1/2. Gopal Singh S/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 40 years,

¶5

1/3. Shatkesh S/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 38 years,

¶6

1/4. Bhuvneshwari D/o Late Shri Kishan & W/o Om Singh, aged about 42 years,

¶7

All above are R/o Uston Ki Bari, Bikaner.

¶8

Vijaylaxmi @ Masi Bai D/o Aasharam & W/o Prabhusingh, R/o Rashtradppt Prem Ke pass, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner,

¶9

Smt. Kamla @ Mirabai D/o Aasharam & W/o Jagdish Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o Kailashpuri, Gandhi Nagar, Bikaner; 4. Santosh D/o Aasharam & W/o Kishore Singh, aged about 59 years, R/o Near Rajasthan Bal Mandir, Nathusar Gate, Bikaner.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Ram Kishan S/o Aasharam, R/o Chayan Prakash, Opp. Rashtradoot Press, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner,

¶13

Raghuveer Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o C-105, Antoday Nagar, Bikaner,

¶14

Ummed Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o C-105, Antoday Nagar, Bikaner,

¶15

Smt. Pramila W/o Ratanlal & D/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Majisa Ka Bas, Opp. Rajkiya Mundranalaya, Bikaner,

¶16

Smt. Maya W/o Vikram Singh, D/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Majisa Ka Bas, Opp. Rajkiya Mundranalaya, Bikaner,

¶17

Roopchand S/o Asharam, R/o inside Usto Ki Bari, Bikaner.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

Connected With

¶20

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 81/2011

¶21

Sushama W/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 63 years,

¶22

Shri Kishan since deceased through Legal Representatives1/1. Gopal Singh S/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 40 years,

¶23

1/2. Shatkesh S/o Late Shri Kishan, aged about 38 years,

¶24

1/3. Bhuvneshwari D/o Late Shri Kishan & W/o Om Singh, aged about 42 years,

¶25

All above are R/o Uston Ki Bari, Bikaner.

¶26

----Appellants

¶27

(2 of 4) [CFA-80/2011]

¶28

[2023:RJ-JD:23069]

¶29

Versus

¶30

Roopchand S/o Asharam, R/o Bhathadon Ka Chowk, Jaalwali Gali, Bikaner.

¶31

Ram Kishan S/o Aasharam, R/o Chayan Prakash, Opp. Rashtradoot Press, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner,

¶32

Smt. Sushila W/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o 152-C, Antoday Nagar Behind Dudi Petrol Pump, Bikaner,

¶33

Raghuveer Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o C-105, Antoday Nagar, Bikaner,

¶34

Ummed Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o C-105, Antoday Nagar,behind Dudi Petrol Pump, Bikaner, 6. Pramila D/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o C-105, Antoday Nagar, behind Dudi Petrol Pump, Bikaner,

¶35

Maya D/o Bhanwar Singh, C-105, Antoday Nagar, behind Dudi Petrol Pump, Bikaner,

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rajeev Purohit
	Mr.	Bheemkant Vyas
	Ms.	Twinkle Purohit

¶38

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶39

Order

¶40

24/07/2023

¶41

During the pendency of the present appeal, the parties to the litigation have amicably settled the matter out of the Court and a duly signed compromise has been placed on record. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the rival parties jointly submit that the compromise has been signed with free will, without any coercion and duress. The compromise has been verified by the Registrar Judicial of this Court, pursuant to direction given today.

[2023:RJ-JD:23069]

[CFA-80/2011]

(3 of 4)

Though, no date was inscribed on subject compromise, but as the same has been verified in presence of all the parties and all the parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial of this Court today (24.07.2023), the agreement/compromise shall be deemed to have been executed on 24.07.2023 and referred to as “the compromise dated 24.07.2023”.

¶46

According to the compromise arrived at between the parties, two properties have come in share of the respondent Roopchand and LR of Shri Krishan (Smt. Sushma), the description of the

¶47

property has been given in schedule – A ( परि�शि�ष्ट – A) and the suit parties have been given amount mentioned in schedule - B

¶48

( परि�शि�ष्ट - B), .

¶49

Both these appeals are, therefore, disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 24.07.2023. The compromise shall be treated an integral part of the present order.

¶50

Registry is directed to provide certified copy of the compromise dated 24.07.2023, while issuing certified copy of the order instant.

¶51

The judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner, in Civil Suit No.221/2005, impugned in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.80/2011 is hereby modified in terms of order instant.

¶52

A decree in terms of the order instant read with compromise be issued in accordance with law.

¶53

The judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner, in

¶54

[2023:RJ-JD:23069] (4 of 4) [CFA-80/2011]

¶55

Civil Suit No.260/2008, impugned in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.81/2011, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶56

The sale-deed dated 09.12.1994, executed in favour of Sushma shall remain valid for all the purposes.

¶57

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶58

C-11-113-114-Ramesh/-

Smt.Sushma and Anr. v. Roop Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt.Sushma and Anr. v. Roop Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanket Bhavsar Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Chouhan Vs State

Chirag Deora Vs State of Rajasthan

Girish Chandra Vs Raj.Non Govt.Edu.Inst.Tribunal and Ors.

Gopal Lal Tailor Vs State and Ors.

Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.