Allahabad High Court
Kashi Ram And 2 Others vs Smt Divyamurti And 3 Others on 7 November, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175022
Court No. - 9
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11803 of 2024
Petitioner :- Kashi Ram And 2 Others
Respondent :- Smt Divyamurti And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Dutt,Hanuman Prasad Dube,Vipul Dube
Counsel for Respondent :- Devesh Kumar Singh,Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri HP Dubey, learned counsel along with Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for defendants-respondents no.2, 3 and 4.
2. Plaintiffs had filed Suit No. 175 of 2019 seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of Arazi No. 36 and 37. A compromise was entered between the parties on 11.07.2019 wherein it was stated that land measuring 11.48 decimal of Arazi No. 38 which was not part of suit property was given to plaintiffs who were to construct house over it. The plaintiffs were to vacate the house within 12 months and sale-deed was to be executed by defendants in favour of plaintiffs in respect of Arazi No. 38 measuring 11.48 decimal once the house was vacated by plaintiffs. In case, the house was not vacated, defendants had the right to move for execution of decree. The compromise entered between the parties was made part of the decree and suit was decided in terms of compromise vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2021.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that pursuant to compromise entered between the parties, defendants-respondents have not executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and had moved an execution case for evicting the premises in question and the land has not been given to plaintiffs.
4. Opposing the writ petition, Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for defendants-respondents submits that paragraph 2 of compromise entered between the parties clearly states that land measuring 11.48 decimal of Arazi No. 38 was given to plaintiffs on which they were required to construct the house and sale-deed was contingent upon their evicting the house in which they were living, within 12 months. According to her, plaintiffs have not evicted the premises in question. Further, she contends that plaintiffs have filed another Suit No. 321 of 2022 for permanent injunction till the land of Arazi No. 38 is demarcated in favour of plaintiffs. According to her, the application moved under Section 151 for modification of the decree is not maintainable and both the courts below have rightly rejected the same.
5. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners, after consulting his client, has made a statement in the open Court that his client is ready to settle the matter with the contesting defendants-respondents, and as per the compromise entered between the parties on 11.07.2019 in Suit No.175 of 2019, he will be vacating the premises/house within two months from today.
6. The defendants to immediately within one week from the date of vacation of the premises/house, execute the sale deed in respect of 11.48 decimal land of Arazi No.38 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Further, the petitioners' counsel submits that the other suit filed by the petitioners being Suit No.321 of 2022 be dismissed as he is not pressing the same as the compromise have entered between the parties.
7. Learned counsel appearing for defendants-respondents submits that for the next two months, he will not be pressing the execution case and once, the plaintiffs-petitioners vacate the premises in question and the sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners, the execution proceedings shall be dropped and the same will be consigned to record.
8. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the order impugned needs no interference by this Court at this stage, as the parties have orally agreed in the open Court today to comply with the compromise deed dated 11.07.2019 executed by them in Original Suit No.175 of 2019 which is the part of decree of Original Suit No.175 of 2019.
9. This Court grants two months' time to the plaintiffs-petitioners for vacating the premises/house in question. The petitioners shall handover the peaceful possession to defendants-respondents within time agreed in the Court today.
10. The defendants-respondents shall thereafter, within a week, execute the sale deed of land measuring 11.48 decimal of Arazi No.38 in favour of the petitioners.
11. The Original Suit No.321 of 2022 filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners stands dismissed in view of the statement made by them in the open Court that they are not pressing the same.
12. Further, the proceedings of Execution Case No.07 of 2022 shall remain stayed for two months and on the vacation of the premises/house in question by the plaintiffs and the execution of sale deed by defendants-respondents in favour of the plaintiffs, the said execution case shall stand closed and will be consigned to record.
13. The copy of this order shall be placed in the records of Original Suit No.321 of 2022 as well as Execution Case No.07 of 2022.
14. In view of the above, writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
SK Goswami
