Partly allowed

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, v. Jasvir Singh S/O Shri Prabha Singh

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2024CFA/475/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the appellant's application to implead a legal heir by refusing it as the heir was already on record, dismissing the earlier impleadment petition. The court records a compromise application between appellant and respondent heirs and modifies the impugned decree in accordance with it, disposing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application to implead Harcharan allowed (as he was already on record). Order 22 Rule 4 CPC application dismissed. Compromise application allowed and decree modified accordingly.

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, Vs Jasvir Singh S/O Shri… — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34570]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 475/2002

¶4

Rajendra Singh son of Shri Mangat Singh, aged about 65 years, resident of village Nouguavan, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jasvir Singh son of Shri Prabha Singh R/o Village Nouguavan, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶8

1/1 Har Charan Singh son of Late Shri Jasvir Singh,

¶9

1/2 Ranjeet Singh son of late Shri Jasvir Singh,

¶10

resident of 5-Kha-7 Manu Marg, Housing Board, Alwar.

¶11

1/3 Gurmeet Kaur wife of Shri Surendra Pal Singh D/o Late Shri Jasvir Singh, resident of House No.6, New Mohar Singh Colony, Trapdi Town, Patiala, Punjab.

¶12

–-Plaintiff-respondent

¶13

Prakash Singh S/o Shri Prabha Singh, resident of Village Nouguavan, Tehsil Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar

¶14

----Defendant-respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Aggrawal, Mr. Laxmikant For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶17

Order

¶18

14/08/2024

¶19

Matter comes up on an application (1/2024) filed under Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant for seeking not pressing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and to implead Harcharan on record on the basis of Will executed by respondent No.2-Prakash Singh dated 07.05.2007.

¶20

It is also mentioned in the application that the appellant, by filing the present appeal, has challenged the decree granted in

[2024:RJ-JP:34570]

[CFA-475/2002]

(2 of 4)

favour of Jasveer Singh (respondent No.1). The trial Court cancelled the sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 (Prakash Singh) in favour of the appellant. It is contended that legal heirs of respondent No.1-Jasveer Singh i.e. Harcharan has already been on record as deceased respondent No.2 has executed the Will in favour of respondent No.1/1-Harcharan Singh. The earlier application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC may be dismissed.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶26

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has no objection, if the application is allowed.

¶27

Considering the above facts, the application filed by the appellant is allowed. The earlier application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is dismissed as not pressed.

¶28

As the deceased respondent No.2 has already executed a Will of disputed property in favour of legal heirs of respondent No.1 i.e. Harcharan and he is already on record being legal heir of Jasveer Singh. There is no need to direct the appellant to implead Harcharan as a party.

¶29

The above application is disposed of.

¶30

The appellant and respondent No.1 have jointly submitted an application for passing the compromise decree.

¶31

The application is supported by affidavits of appellantRajendra Singh and respondent No.1/1-Harcharan & respondent No.1/2-Ranjeet Singh.

¶32

The parties have also annexed the Power of Attorney of respondent No.1/3-Gurmeet Kaur executed in favour of respondent No.1/1-Harcharan Singh and compromise arrived at between the parties.

[2024:RJ-JP:34570]

[CFA-475/2002]

(3 of 4)

It is contended jointly by the counsels that appellant and legal heirs of respondent No.1 have entered into compromise and in terms of compromise, the decree may be modified.

¶37

After perusing the record, it is apparent that the said compromise was submitted before this Court on 26.07.2024 and it bears the signatures of appellant-Rajendra Singh and legal heirs of respondent No.1/1-Harcharan Singh and respondent No.1/2Ranjeet Singh. The parties were identified by their counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents.

¶38

By way of instant appeal, the appellant-Rajendra Singh has challenged the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2002 passed in favour of respondent No.1-Late Shri Jasveer Singh, whereby the Court cancelled the sale deed executed between respondent No.2Late Shri Prakash Singh and the present appellant.

¶39

The record shows that during appeal Jasveer Singh i.e. respondent No.1 has died and his legal heirs were brought on record which includes Harcharan Singh as respondent No.1/1. The record also shows that respondent No.2-Prakash Singh who executed the sale deed in favour of Late Jasveer Singh has also died during pendency of this appeal and disputed property was transferred by way of Will to respondent No.1/1-Harcharan Singh. It is not disputed that during pendency of the appeal, the disputed land has been renumbered as Khasra Nos.1000, 1001 and 1002. Khasra Nos.1001 and 1002 are in the name of Jasveer Singh (deceased) and in Khasra No.1000 is in the name of Prakash Singh measuring one Bigha, 8 Biswa.

¶40

In the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the above fact has been mentioned. In the compromise, it is agreed between

[2024:RJ-JP:34570]

[CFA-475/2002]

(4 of 4)

Harcharan Singh and appellant Rajendra Singh that out of Khasra No.1000 measuring one Bigha 8 Biswa, 14 Biswa of the land on the North may be recorded in the name of appellant-Rajendra Singh. The compromise bears the signatures of appellant-Rajendra Singh and respondent No.1/1-Harcharan Singh & respondent No.1/2-Ranjeet Singh. Respondent No.1/3-Gurmeet Kaur is represented by respondent No.1/1 through Power of Attorney, which is also on the record.

¶45

Therefore, considering the above facts, the application filed by the appellant-Rajendra Singh and Harcharan Singh under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for taking compromise on record and passing a decree in terms of the compromise is allowed. The decree passed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2002 is hereby modified, in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties annexed with the compromise application (Annexure-A/3).

¶46

The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise entered between the parties. The compromise shall be part of the Decree.

¶47

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶48

pcg/429

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, v. Jasvir Singh S/O Shri Prabha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, v. Jasvir Singh S/O Shri Prabha Singh

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

Lokendra Singh @ Loki S/O Bhanwar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Aditya S/O Late Shri Kripal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmilal Bairwa S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hiralal S/O Nandaram Vs State of Rajajsthan

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan