Disposed

Bghanwara Ram v. Jassa Ram

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023CSA/285/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a property dispute, the High Court of Rajasthan disposed of the matter based on a verified compromise between the appellant's legal representatives and the respondent plaintiff. The compromise led to the set-aside of the prior judgments and decree, and the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit, resulting in the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the lower courts are set aside. The respondent plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit, which is consequently dismissed as withdrawn. The compromise forms part of the or

Bghanwara Ram Vs Jassa Ram — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010813]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 285/1994

¶4

Legal representatives of Bhanwara Ram s/o Mangla Ram. 1/1. Younger Brother Purkha Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram, by caste Jat Dedel, R/o Arniyala, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

¶5

1/1/1. Ramsukh S/o Shri Purkha Ram, aged about 57 years.

¶6

1/1/2. Shivlal S/o Shri Purkha Ram, aged about 53 years.

¶7

1/1/3. Bhima Ram S/o Shri Purkha Ram, aged about 49 years. 1/1/4. Somodari D/o Shri Purkha Ram, aged about 57 years, 1/1/5. Om Prakash S/o Shri Purkha Ram, aged about 39 years, All by caste Jat Dedel, R/o Arniyala, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Jassa Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Kheda Ki Shanpura, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

¶11

Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Lt. Shri Rajendra Kumar,

¶12

Balram S/o Lt. Shri Rajendra Kumar,

¶13

Smt. Leela Devi W/o Lt. Shri Sahdev,

¶14

Smt. Ramlata D/o Lt. Shri Sahdev,

¶15

Smt. Sumitra D/o Lt. Shri Sahdev,

¶16

Ram Prakash S/o Lt. Shri Sahdev, All are resident of Arniyala, Tehsil-Riyanbadi, District - Naguar (Raj.).

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Ranjeet Joshi
	Mr.	Kapil Bissa
	Mr.	Abhijeet Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Pawan Bharti for
	Mr.	I.R. Choudhary
	Mr.	Prashant Tatia

¶19

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶20

Order

¶21

19/04/2023

¶22

An application has been preferred jointly on behalf of the legal representatives of the appellant and the newly impleaded

[2023/RJJD/010813]

[CSA-285/1994]

(2 of 3)

respondents No.2 to 7 with a submission that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and the present appeal be disposed of in terms of the said compromise. It has been submitted in the application that in view of the compromise, the orders impugned be set aside and the plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit.

¶27

A perusal of the record shows that the defendant appellant Bhanwara Ram had expired way back in the year 2005 and vide order dated 24.10.2005, his brother Purkha Ram, being the only close relative of Bhanwara Ram, was ordered to be substituted in his place as Bhanwara Ram was not having any issue. Purkha Ram also expired during the pendency of the present appeal and vide order dated 12.04.2003, his legal representatives were permitted to be taken on record.

¶28

The present compromise has now been entered into between the legal representatives of Purkha Ram and the newly added respondents No.2 to 7 who claim to have purchased the land from the original defendant Bhanwara Ram even prior to the agreement to sell executed by Bhanwara Ram in favour of the plaintiff Jassa Ram.

¶29

In pursuance to the order dated 12.04.2023, the compromise as entered into between the parties has been verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶30

In view of the conditions as settled into between the parties, the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1994 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Civil Appeal No.28/1990 and the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Merta in Civil Suit No.68/1983 are hereby set aside. The respondent plaintiff

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/010813]

[CSA-285/1994]

Jassa Ram is permitted to withdraw the suit as preferred by him and consequently, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

The compromise as entered into between the parties shall form a part of the present order.

¶36

The present appeal is therefore, disposed of in terms of the compromise as entered into between the parties.

¶37

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶38

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶39

36-Sachin/-

Bghanwara Ram v. Jassa Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bghanwara Ram v. Jassa Ram

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Amarati Devi

Kishan Lal @ Kishana Ram Vs Kiran Devi

Tarvender Singh Vs Durgaprasad

Sohan Lal Vs Sukhdev Singh

Ratan Lal and Ors. Vs Kannaji and Ors.

Ratanlal Vs Municipal Council